Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT
 

Actually, it wasn't that bad.
I enjoyed it.
What bugged me was that Peter Parker is now a smooth-talking hipster, but otherwise it was good.
No Avengers or Watchmen, but 7/10 kinda good.

I wasn't planning to see it honestly but my little brother really wants to see it. Hopefully he'll learn something about shitty movies from it.

Calibanbutcher:
Just a question: Would Spidermah have added anything of value to the Avengers movie?

Firstly: Spiderman has been on the Avengers roster, so if you're looking to add new characters (and they most likely are), he's an easy pick. Saves them from having to fund an origin story for a character nobody recognizes. If a red-and-blue jumpsuit wearing male swings into the scene, even the dumbest of audiences knows who that is. Not as many will recognize Black Panther, or Ant-Man, or other options.

Marvel really has three main "roads" they can go with the second "chapter" of their film universe.

1) You make the next Avengers film without any new characters, despite the roster for the Avengers changing on a regular basis in comic lore.

2) You make the next Avengers films while introducing brand new characters, who will need to be introduced in some way. Which means you either fork over the cash to make origin movies for them (and risk them being financial bombs), or you do as you did in the first Avengers and give them cameos in your existing major film franchises (which risks those films' finances instead, and isn't as likely to go over well with characters whose origins aren't as strongly tied to SHIELD).

3) You bring in well known, major Marvel Universe characters that have shown up on the Avengers roster at some time or another and that audiences would instantly recognize, potentially saving you money (since you don't necessarily need to do an origin story for someone well known) and bringing greater revenue in the grand scheme of things.

Given the choices, the one that saves the most money, makes the most money, and is arguably the best film is obvious.

It seems likely that Ant-Man will be added to the roster given the renewed drive to get a movie for him finished. That also opens the door for connected characters, like Wasp. So it seems Marvel is already going with either option 2 or 3. Now the problem: Since the X-Men are owned by Sony as well as Spiderman, that takes away good options for characters. Sony's insistence on grabbing a firm hold on the rights to both X-Men and Spiderman means that we'll never know whether or not Spiderman would "add something significant", because that team-up is now impossible.

Let's be honest: would the current Avengers cast honestly be hurt in any way from having even more badasses on the screen at a given time? Would having, say, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch show up and contribute degrade the quality of the film? It's hard to argue that more characters wouldn't potentially aid in beefing up things for a massive galatic showdown with Thanos in the next Avengers film. Keep in mind this is a dude who is well known for killing over half of the Marvel Universe's superheroes on his own, he's a universe destroying sort of guy. Having a bigger roster for that film seems sort of essential, honestly.

Ramzal:
Because you're not doing it in a rational sense.

Yes, I am.

You've made a decision off of two things. The first being the fact that they are putting out another Spider-man movie for money. Okay, they remade -every- marvel movie that has ever had any kind of movie or show to begin with for that purpose. Captain America had a show/movie, Spider-man had one, Hulk. These movies already had projects beforehand that didn't catch too much wind, but was attempted again because the current generation is all about these kind of movies involving superpowered heroes.

So if you've seen Captain America or any marvel movie already, you've already beaten your own cause.

This strain of logic helps illustrate that you don't understand what I'm talking about. So let me try to simplify it for you.

Would you say that the Batman movies are corporate cash-ins that were made purely to make mone, or a legitimate attempt to tell the Batman story in a way it hadn't been told before? How about Lord of the Rings? Were they corporate cash-ins, or were they trying to tell the story of the books in a manner adapted to suit an audience that probably hadn't read the books?

If you answered the former (that they are cash-ins) to any of those, you're an idiot.

There is a significant difference between a film that exists to make money and a film that exists to tell a story, and the difference is measurable. The Batman films demonstrate their intentions through the individuals they hire (buying Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, etc was not cheap), the way they do business, etc. The Avengers movie was a VERY expensive movie, especially when it came to buying Robert Downey Jr (who made more than all of his co-stars combined), and then on top of that, they had to afford Joss Whedon.

Let's compare to The Amazing Spiderman: a film featuring significantly cheap actors. Andrew Garfield's last big role was in "The Social Network", Emma Stone is an actor who has been in and out of various romantic comedies (few of which made big bucks), and Rhys Ifans is....has he been in ANY big films that weren't blatant cash-ins (Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties, among others)? Their director is Marc Webb, who is far better known for his work in making music videos than his work in film making (this is his second major film behind). So you have here a roster of cheap talent in the lead roles and as director. So Sony did this for monetary reasons, they risked paying Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire a hell of a lot more money.

On top of this, Raimi wanted more creative control over the next Spiderman film, because in Spiderman 3, the studio obligated him to put in story elements that he didn't originally want in there (which is part of the reason it fell so flat). Sony refused to give it to him.

We're not even comparing remotely similar situations. You're the one being irrational and not thinking here. Marvel has shown a willingness to shell out a LOT of coin to make the movies good, whereas Sony drove away its lead star and director....and to replace them with cheap people who were still new to the scene shows a clear indication of intentions. Even if you willfully choose to ignore the fact that Sony would lose the rights to Spiderman if they hadn't made this film (which requires a lot of denial to pull off), you can't ignore all of the evidence showing Sony's focus on money over story. That is why I refuse to support it, and if you can't wrap your head around it, that's honestly not my problem.

Worse off is the fact that you are making a very narrow minded decision off of a product you haven't tried yet. It's like saying you hate liver and onions without ever trying to eat it. Your opinion on the quality of a product you have not experience is as founded and valuable as a grain of dirt. (Not to sound insulting.)

This point of view is honestly more ignorant than the one you're against.

"Try before you knock it" is a fantastic form of logic when it comes to cheap articles or necessities. Food, water, shelter, etc. These are things I cannot go without, and so if I don't get "the perfect apartment", that's tough shit. I'll just have to find an affordable one I like and "try it out" before I throw in the towel and live on the street.

But in a tough economy, entertainment products are the first luxury to go out the window. Movie tickets are $10 and the concessions are more. Video games are $60. I don't WANT to "try it before I knock it", because that means that I'm gambling with my money. The reason people look for reviews and such is because they don't want to be forced to go to the film before making an opinion about whether or not it's going to be worth their time and money. They need that decision to be made before they go, because no smart individual is going to waste their money on something they have strong suspicions they won't like.

Not to mention that while you SAY this, I'm quite certain that you don't live this philosophy. How do I know? Well, let me ask: do you go to EVERY film you see advertised? Of course not. You pick and choose which ones to see based on your own pre-determined biased of what you like and what you do not. If you hate romantic comedies, you don't rush out to go see another one. You undoubtedly do the same with video games. I myself am not fond of FPSs, so when the next Call of Duty comes out, you can bet I'm not even going to give it a second glance. I don't have to "try" everything to know whether or not I'll like it. I can get informed, look up information about the game, watch reviews and gameplay footage, all before I make the decision to buy. Because that is what a SMART consumer does: they get educated and don't let commercials tell them what to spend money on.

If you realistically believe that people can't know whether or not they're going to like something before they've tried it, then I pity you, because you must waste an awful lot of your own money going to see lots of movies that you ended up hating. After all, you can't KNOW you'll hate it until you watched it right? So you must go to the movies every week so you can see all the films and decide which ones you like, and which were a waste of time, since you can't possibly decide "this is stupid and I won't waste my money on it" BEFORE you go to the movie....right?

Any movie made is for the sake of money. No one makes a fill in Hollywood for the sake of "This is going to be fun." The people who make those movies need to eat and have places to live. So anything made is for the sake of income.

Necessity does not excuse quality. If you choose to go into a job and you suck at it, you get fired. You need the money for your family, you say? Tough, you need to be GOOD at what you do, or you stop making money on it and have to find something else you're good at.

Plus, the reason I REALLY hate this argument is that it tries to make these millionaires sound like "they're just like you or me, and if they don't get the paycheck for that next multi-million dollar film, why they'll just die!". No, more like they'll have to settle for a slightly cheaper steak dinner each week.

Secondly, it's a problem that you say things/act so impulsively because the company has never done anything to hurt YOU. YOUR money wasn't put into making the movie, and I am sure you have done no writing for the script, no stunts, no acting, and you weren't behind a camera.

I don't deserve the right to choose how to spend my money because my money wasn't spent in making the film? What kind of nonsensical non-point is that?

It's a self entitled position that consumers constantly put themselves in that they have to feel as if they are being cheated for someone daring to put out anything that doesn't fit their -exact- demands. Again, the company that has funded making The Amazing Spider-man has done nothing to hurt YOU. It bugs me because people have this preconception of an evil company that dares mess with what a consumer DEMANDS they have a list of things handed to them, in a certain manner.

What are you even talking about? This has nothing to do with what I've said.

What I said: "I refuse to go see this movie, even if it may be good, because it was made under faulty business practices that I do not support".

What you're interpreting this as: "They didn't make the movie *I* want so I'm going to tell all my friends to boycott this movie!"

The two are literally nothing alike. Who are you arguing with?

They've done nothing to you. I can understand if you had no interest in the movie for the sake of it just not interesting you period, but honestly you are not making an informed nor a well thought out one. It's simply just...petty.

My point is very well thought out. I choose not to support a film whose basis is "how can we make the most money?" rather than "how can we make a good story?". That's a simple, logical reason to not go see a movie.

Now let's review your key arguments:
1) If you've ever paid money into any movie based on another IP, you're supporting the "evil" corporations you claim to fight against. (this is akin to claiming that supporting Valve is the same as supporting EA....in other words, it's absolute nonsense)
2) You can't POSSIBLY know if you'll like something before you try it, so it's best to just gamble with your money. (this is something you clearly don't do yourself, so you're basically speaking on a makeshift pedestal so as to lord over a topic you have no authority over)
3) The corporation didn't "hurt" you, so it's perfectly okay for them to engage in any business practice they wish. (if a corporation engages in a bad business practice, it's perfectly okay to say "hey, that's kind of a dick move" even if you're not invested in it directly)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how my point of view is more irrational than yours.

I'll say it again: This movie was far better, from a character standpoint, than the Raimi movies.

Every character had more depth and authenticity. And to some people, that bugged them. Authentic characters aren't so glaringly one-note that you can easily hear that one note above everything else. Some people are annoyed when things aren't so simple as, "The bully is a jerk. The hero is an outcast nerd. The uncle dies in a carjacking."

There are two major problems with how people are viewing this movie (at least the scant few that have problems with it):

1. They're viewing it with a dogmatic allegiance to the long-established canon. This is a reboot, not just a retelling of the exact same story. There are some changes. And Marvel comics is experimenting with the same (see: "Ultimate" comics) because they've realized that the heroes have outgrown (and in some cases outlived) their original audience. Without new blood, they will die.

2. They're comparing this one movie to Sam Raimi's three. Perhaps without knowing they're doing so. People complain that such-and-such didn't happen (ie, Gwen stacy dying) or that such-and-such plotline didn't go far enough... it's the first movie. It'd be like complaining about the first Raimi movie because it didn't have Doc Ock in it. In a movie-to-movie comparison, this movie got just as much established as the first Raimi joint.

(And I think it did it better. I say this even being a die-hard Raimi fan. I have no problems with how the first two movies were directed. But the writing and the acting were sub-par, and some of the casting was nightmarish. This movie improved a great deal of that.)

ADDENDUM: And you know what? Some of that might be specifically because it was a ploy to hold onto the license. There wasn't the same pressure for this movie to be a blockbuster, so probably not as much pressure from agents to get this-or-that major actor/actress more screen time, or any of that. The writer and director were basically told, "Make a Spider-Man movie." And they did.

Were the money-counters just trying to cash in? Sure. That's what they do. But don't put that on the writer, director, or actors. I don't see any evidence of "cash grab" from them. I see people turning in stellar work.

i'm not going to defend the movie, i haven't seen it, but it seemed like he thought alot of this review up months before the movie came out.

he rants on and on about why the movie was made and how its a terrible reason to make a movie (even being hypocritical and saying it isn't good to critisize a movie based on the corporate side of it) before he even talks about the movie itself

plus every time a bit of news came out about the movie he kept going on about how it's "enevitbly terrible" when Andrew Garfield was cast he said his careers was hittting a breick wall because of it, he devoted one of his credits jokes to how bad the trailers were.

even i can see that he had a dozen reasons to hate this movie before it even came out, and his opinion seemed to be tainted because of that

i used to think that his opinion was one to be trusted but now he just seems like a jaded and volatile person who flies off the handle about things that aren't that big of a deal (Mass Effect 3 ending fiasco for example) and calls certain movies bad to such a ludicrous degree that i just can't take him seriously anymore

sorry Bob, i know you don't want people to see this movie, but i'm going to, and i'm going to make my own mind up about it

CriticKitten:

Calibanbutcher:
Just a question: Would Spidermah have added anything of value to the Avengers movie?

Firstly: Spiderman has been on the Avengers roster, so if you're looking to add new characters (and they most likely are), he's an easy pick. Saves them from having to fund an origin story for a character nobody recognizes. If a red-and-blue jumpsuit wearing male swings into the scene, even the dumbest of audiences knows who that is. Not as many will recognize Black Panther, or Ant-Man, or other options.

Marvel really has three main "roads" they can go with the second "chapter" of their film universe.

1) You make the next Avengers film without any new characters, despite the roster for the Avengers changing on a regular basis in comic lore.

2) You make the next Avengers films while introducing brand new characters, who will need to be introduced in some way. Which means you either fork over the cash to make origin movies for them (and risk them being financial bombs), or you do as you did in the first Avengers and give them cameos in your existing major film franchises (which risks those films' finances instead, and isn't as likely to go over well with characters whose origins aren't as strongly tied to SHIELD).

3) You bring in well known, major Marvel Universe characters that have shown up on the Avengers roster at some time or another and that audiences would instantly recognize, potentially saving you money (since you don't necessarily need to do an origin story for someone well known) and bringing greater revenue in the grand scheme of things.

Given the choices, the one that saves the most money, makes the most money, and is arguably the best film is obvious.

It seems likely that Ant-Man will be added to the roster given the renewed drive to get a movie for him finished. That also opens the door for connected characters, like Wasp. So it seems Marvel is already going with either option 2 or 3. Now the problem: Since the X-Men are owned by Sony as well as Spiderman, that takes away good options for characters. Sony's insistence on grabbing a firm hold on the rights to both X-Men and Spiderman means that we'll never know whether or not Spiderman would "add something significant", because that team-up is now impossible.

Let's be honest: would the current Avengers cast honestly be hurt in any way from having even more badasses on the screen at a given time? Would having, say, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch show up and contribute degrade the quality of the film? It's hard to argue that more characters wouldn't potentially aid in beefing up things for a massive galatic showdown with Thanos in the next Avengers film. Keep in mind this is a dude who is well known for killing over half of the Marvel Universe's superheroes on his own, he's a universe destroying sort of guy. Having a bigger roster for that film seems sort of essential, honestly.

Ramzal:
Because you're not doing it in a rational sense.

Yes, I am.

You've made a decision off of two things. The first being the fact that they are putting out another Spider-man movie for money. Okay, they remade -every- marvel movie that has ever had any kind of movie or show to begin with for that purpose. Captain America had a show/movie, Spider-man had one, Hulk. These movies already had projects beforehand that didn't catch too much wind, but was attempted again because the current generation is all about these kind of movies involving superpowered heroes.

So if you've seen Captain America or any marvel movie already, you've already beaten your own cause.

This strain of logic helps illustrate that you don't understand what I'm talking about. So let me try to simplify it for you.

Would you say that the Batman movies are corporate cash-ins that were made purely to make mone, or a legitimate attempt to tell the Batman story in a way it hadn't been told before? How about Lord of the Rings? Were they corporate cash-ins, or were they trying to tell the story of the books in a manner adapted to suit an audience that probably hadn't read the books?

If you answered the former (that they are cash-ins) to any of those, you're an idiot.

There is a significant difference between a film that exists to make money and a film that exists to tell a story, and the difference is measurable. The Batman films demonstrate their intentions through the individuals they hire (buying Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, etc was not cheap), the way they do business, etc. The Avengers movie was a VERY expensive movie, especially when it came to buying Robert Downey Jr (who made more than all of his co-stars combined), and then on top of that, they had to afford Joss Whedon.

Let's compare to The Amazing Spiderman: a film featuring significantly cheap actors. Andrew Garfield's last big role was in "The Social Network", Emma Stone is an actor who has been in and out of various romantic comedies (few of which made big bucks), and Rhys Ifans is....has he been in ANY big films that weren't blatant cash-ins (Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties, among others)? Their director is Marc Webb, who is far better known for his work in making music videos than his work in film making (this is his second major film behind). So you have here a roster of cheap talent in the lead roles and as director. So Sony did this for monetary reasons, they risked paying Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire a hell of a lot more money.

On top of this, Raimi wanted more creative control over the next Spiderman film, because in Spiderman 3, the studio obligated him to put in story elements that he didn't originally want in there (which is part of the reason it fell so flat). Sony refused to give it to him.

We're not even comparing remotely similar situations. You're the one being irrational and not thinking here. Marvel has shown a willingness to shell out a LOT of coin to make the movies good, whereas Sony drove away its lead star and director....and to replace them with cheap people who were still new to the scene shows a clear indication of intentions. Even if you willfully choose to ignore the fact that Sony would lose the rights to Spiderman if they hadn't made this film (which requires a lot of denial to pull off), you can't ignore all of the evidence showing Sony's focus on money over story. That is why I refuse to support it, and if you can't wrap your head around it, that's honestly not my problem.

Worse off is the fact that you are making a very narrow minded decision off of a product you haven't tried yet. It's like saying you hate liver and onions without ever trying to eat it. Your opinion on the quality of a product you have not experience is as founded and valuable as a grain of dirt. (Not to sound insulting.)

This point of view is honestly more ignorant than the one you're against.

"Try before you knock it" is a fantastic form of logic when it comes to cheap articles or necessities. Food, water, shelter, etc. These are things I cannot go without, and so if I don't get "the perfect apartment", that's tough shit. I'll just have to find an affordable one I like and "try it out" before I throw in the towel and live on the street.

But in a tough economy, entertainment products are the first luxury to go out the window. Movie tickets are $10 and the concessions are more. Video games are $60. I don't WANT to "try it before I knock it", because that means that I'm gambling with my money. The reason people look for reviews and such is because they don't want to be forced to go to the film before making an opinion about whether or not it's going to be worth their time and money. They need that decision to be made before they go, because no smart individual is going to waste their money on something they have strong suspicions they won't like.

Not to mention that while you SAY this, I'm quite certain that you don't live this philosophy. How do I know? Well, let me ask: do you go to EVERY film you see advertised? Of course not. You pick and choose which ones to see based on your own pre-determined biased of what you like and what you do not. If you hate romantic comedies, you don't rush out to go see another one. You undoubtedly do the same with video games. I myself am not fond of FPSs, so when the next Call of Duty comes out, you can bet I'm not even going to give it a second glance. I don't have to "try" everything to know whether or not I'll like it. I can get informed, look up information about the game, watch reviews and gameplay footage, all before I make the decision to buy. Because that is what a SMART consumer does: they get educated and don't let commercials tell them what to spend money on.

If you realistically believe that people can't know whether or not they're going to like something before they've tried it, then I pity you, because you must waste an awful lot of your own money going to see lots of movies that you ended up hating. After all, you can't KNOW you'll hate it until you watched it right? So you must go to the movies every week so you can see all the films and decide which ones you like, and which were a waste of time, since you can't possibly decide "this is stupid and I won't waste my money on it" BEFORE you go to the movie....right?

Any movie made is for the sake of money. No one makes a fill in Hollywood for the sake of "This is going to be fun." The people who make those movies need to eat and have places to live. So anything made is for the sake of income.

Necessity does not excuse quality. If you choose to go into a job and you suck at it, you get fired. You need the money for your family, you say? Tough, you need to be GOOD at what you do, or you stop making money on it and have to find something else you're good at.

Plus, the reason I REALLY hate this argument is that it tries to make these millionaires sound like "they're just like you or me, and if they don't get the paycheck for that next multi-million dollar film, why they'll just die!". No, more like they'll have to settle for a slightly cheaper steak dinner each week.

Secondly, it's a problem that you say things/act so impulsively because the company has never done anything to hurt YOU. YOUR money wasn't put into making the movie, and I am sure you have done no writing for the script, no stunts, no acting, and you weren't behind a camera.

I don't deserve the right to choose how to spend my money because my money wasn't spent in making the film? What kind of nonsensical non-point is that?

It's a self entitled position that consumers constantly put themselves in that they have to feel as if they are being cheated for someone daring to put out anything that doesn't fit their -exact- demands. Again, the company that has funded making The Amazing Spider-man has done nothing to hurt YOU. It bugs me because people have this preconception of an evil company that dares mess with what a consumer DEMANDS they have a list of things handed to them, in a certain manner.

What are you even talking about? This has nothing to do with what I've said.

What I said: "I refuse to go see this movie, even if it may be good, because it was made under faulty business practices that I do not support".

What you're interpreting this as: "They didn't make the movie *I* want so I'm going to tell all my friends to boycott this movie!"

The two are literally nothing alike. Who are you arguing with?

They've done nothing to you. I can understand if you had no interest in the movie for the sake of it just not interesting you period, but honestly you are not making an informed nor a well thought out one. It's simply just...petty.

My point is very well thought out. I choose not to support a film whose basis is "how can we make the most money?" rather than "how can we make a good story?". That's a simple, logical reason to not go see a movie.

Now let's review your key arguments:
1) If you've ever paid money into any movie based on another IP, you're supporting the "evil" corporations you claim to fight against. (this is akin to claiming that supporting Valve is the same as supporting EA....in other words, it's absolute nonsense)
2) You can't POSSIBLY know if you'll like something before you try it, so it's best to just gamble with your money. (this is something you clearly don't do yourself, so you're basically speaking on a makeshift pedestal so as to lord over a topic you have no authority over)
3) The corporation didn't "hurt" you, so it's perfectly okay for them to engage in any business practice they wish. (if a corporation engages in a bad business practice, it's perfectly okay to say "hey, that's kind of a dick move" even if you're not invested in it directly)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how my point of view is more irrational than yours.

Your entire argument is irrelevant because you have yet to even -see- the movie to deem if it is good or not. Good day to you, sir.

Ramzal:
Your entire argument is irrelevant because you have yet to even -see- the movie to deem if it is good or not. Good day to you, sir.

So what you meant to say was:

"I have no valid counterarguments to offer against anything you've said, so I'm going to tuck my tail and run away from this conversation now while trying ever so hard to retain my dignity."

Sorry to inform you, but you would have just been better off not replying to my post at all. Would have saved your dignity far better than this trite little "I choose not to recognize your point of view because I refuse to comprehend it" post. If you have nothing of value to offer to the discussion, don't bother posting. Save us all the time of replying to you.

I knew before the film even came out that I wasn't going to like it, that it was going to be the sort of film that exists mostly to keep licensing under Sony's control, and that it probably wasn't going to be cinema gold. It's possible that underneath all of that is a halfway decent film buried somewhere in the rubble. I don't deny that. But this movie is coming out in the same year as The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers, two of the most anticipated superhero movies in years. They KNEW they had to bring their A+ game and (judging from numerous reviews) they didn't, so I don't feel all that bad if people don't pull their punches on this film. Comparison to their competitors is going to happen, it SHOULD happen, and the film should either live up to the bar that has been set. To give the audience a half-assed film (or even just a "good" film) is honestly wasting potential. There's no reason Spiderman shouldn't be capable of hitting the same bar as the Batman films, so falling well short of that is still a failure. Sorry if you don't agree, but oh well. Opinions and all that. >_>

To give the audience a half-assed film (or even just a "good" film) is honestly wasting potential.

Ah to think there was a time when people were happy to see 'good' films.
I loved the new spiderman, I think the actors did a way better job portraying their characters than those of the previous franchise and the reboot worked well enough for me, the tweaks to the origin made sense I thought. But hey thats just my opinion, which I formed myself, by watching the movie.

I thought it was OK. The beginning reeked of forced teen drama where the nerdiest kid in school looks like... that. I HATE awkward teen romantic humor. Two dimwits stuttering through words and thoughts is NOT entertaining. Bullies beat the shit out of him while he gets punished for "humiliating" them later? Not even any physical confrontation?

Also when he's coming to terms with his powers probably about half the school had SEEN him perform impossible acts of human strength. Everyone just forgot about that?

Closing third was quite good IMO. The scene that Moviebob says was stupid came across as the epic win it wanted to be for me.

Although the first original Spiderman was far more memorable. Tobey was a better Spidey and a way better Peter Parker. While old Gobby and Jameson were perfect casts. Good casts in Amazing Spiderman, but nothing that I remember like those other two.

I must disagree with Bob.
I found there film to be lacking in story, characters, creativity and kind of hurried through, as if they stuffed too many scenes in it.
But I thought it was entertaining as a mindless action flick.
I like the new web-shooter stuff. That Peter can "fix things", ergo he can construct web-sbooters.
I like how the New York people actually help him in this one - via crane - and not just throw one measly pipe at the head of the Goblin.
The crane scene was as gripping to me as the scene where the people in the subway carry Spiderman and give him back his mask.
I did not like how the villain flip-flopped, or how the entire reptilian SWAT team did nothing. They got turned, dissappeared and then were seen turning back again. Like, WTF.
If the Reptilians were not important - then why make them????
Notice: Instead of using the all-disperse device in his lab at once, Dr. Kross (?) first goes out with 2 canisters and turns a SWAT team into reptiles.
But the SWAT team never does anything and so the Dr. is just wasting time, so Gwen can produce an anti-toxin.
I was facepalming in the cinema when I saw this villain just give up his lead for some completely unnecessary exposition.
Sure, now we know that he can turn people into reptiles - but that could've been explained with three sentences from Spiderman: "We must stop him before he gets to the tower. All the chemicals are there. He could disperse them over the city and mutate everyone."
That was my biggest gripe with the movie.
I thought the uncle Ben thing was actually handled better in this movie, because the guilt was more heavily laid on Peter than in the other movies IMHO.

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

The scene with the cranes...

...because it was so stupid

Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.

Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?

You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.

I can't tell you...to avoid spoilers...

It's not on Prometheus levels of stupid, but it takes you out of the movie for a few moments...

Does it involve a lot of angst?

Ramzal:

Britisheagle:

I really hope no one goes to see this, however I know they will as all my friends are talking on Facebook about how good it is. My closer friends agree with me. A film like A Nightmare on Elm Street you can understand the justification for a reboot, a more modern take on a classic with updated CGI..

That was a terrible remake. The CGI was good but the remake it self was not very great.

Agreed. But they probably didn't intend to make a film that most didn't enjoy, they made it because the film COULD have benefited from an update whilst cashing in on the franchise. The main difference is, it is a film that was released decades ago.

On the drawing board the Spiderman reboot probably would have been for one of 2 reasons: One - to make more money or Two - to ensure that Marvel couldn't get their rights back. Possibly both.

Regardless, despite it being quite commonplace, I still think it is wrong to redo a trilogy only a few years after the previous one concluded, no justification. The fact the film isn't supposed to be as good as the original Spiderman (according to some, not all) it reinforces that the reboot clearly wasn't necessary and hasn't improved upon the original formula.

That is my personal opinion and if you enjoyed the film I am genuinly glad. It's just one I'm not going to go see.

WOW, Bob.

Holy shit, dude, calm the fuck down. I know you're angry this company still has the rights to Spider-Man, we all are. And it seems like they'll probably never give it up.

But you have laid shit on this movie even worse than the Green Lantern film. The GREEN LANTERN film!!!

Nothing could be worse than that. And, quite honestly, I'm getting a little tired of your placing emotional responses ahead of making a genuine review about the movie itself. You don't do this very often but when you do it makes you seem like a very immature and unprofessional reviewer and I can't watch it anymore.

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

Oh yeah, it seems everybody is talking about the crane.

Haven't seen TASM, what's stupid about it?

You know its not good if the scene you remember from a movie you watched is bad one.

I can't tell you...to avoid spoilers...

It's not on Prometheus levels of stupid, but it takes you out of the movie for a few moments...

Does it involve a lot of angst?

No...

The Grim Ace:
As much as no J. Jonah Jameson hurts, I'm sitting here reeling over the fact that there could be a Spiderman movie worse than Spiderman 3. That hurts me on every possible level.

Jameson just wasn't there because Peter didn't graduate from highschool yet. Also the movie was very solid I enjoyed it a lot. The only real issues were that gwen was working a job she really wasn't old enough to be stationed doing and that the Lizard didn't look as good as you would have wanted. Everything else was fairly solid must people are just butt hurt that it is a origin story. I loved that the movie was a lot more grounded and realistic.

Carpenter:
*snip*

Very well then, I guess I may find out how wrong I am in the future, seeing as to how agressively you've retaliated against my stated opinion, which is based on heresay in the first place, highly ill-informed as it seems it may very well be. Maybe I will indeed have my experience less negatively coloured should anyone take me to see a showing, as it is, I don't have the money for movie tickets until next month at the earliest, what with being poor and all.

I do say, I just noticed the date of your joining us, welcome to the escapist, hope your stay finds you well.

*tips hat*

You tell 'em, Bob!

oh bob i'm disappointed in you... firstly you already decided over year before release that this was going to bad and sure enough you couldnt even wait til friday to rage on about it. secondly as a long time fan of spiderman i cant see how this new movie could be any worse than the 3 abortions they passed off as spiderman movies previously; every character was completely fucked up and toby was not a good choice.... nor was kirsten... or anybody else who played anyone in those movies so ill give it a chance as it can only be as bad as the other 3, not worse.

I haven't seen the movie yet simply cause it hasn't reached Romania. I have been a Spidey fan for the better part of a decade and I eagerly want to see this but Bob stopped me in my tracks. Then I watched this:

The important part comes in about 1:24.

Bob's review was dripping of that. Overflowing actually. I don't think a true Spidey Fan would discourage people of going to see Peter Parker actually being Peter Parker. That's the feeling I got from the trailers.

When your review comes closer to sounding like a comment on a youtube video, yeah, you sort of lose your credibility there. To everyone taking Bob's word for this, don't be sheep. You can't form an opinion on something you haven't tried. From a certain POV, it makes you even worse than him when it comes to judging for yourselves.

Remember, as a start of a new trilogy, Batman Begins didn't do an AMAZING job (HAH!) either but I still watch it sometimes when I am studying.

MrBrightside919:

Antonio Torrente:

MrBrightside919:

I can't tell you...to avoid spoilers...

It's not on Prometheus levels of stupid, but it takes you out of the movie for a few moments...

Does it involve a lot of angst?

No...

Oh well i'll just gonna read the plot synopsis on it's wikipedia article.
thanks for the warning anyway.

I know that this review is your opinion and it doesn't have to conform to the review landscape but literally every other review at said it was great or at least okay. It's hard to take your opinion seriously when we all know you've been gunning against this film for months now. I mean you got mad at the film for putting him in a hoodie for christ sakes! Everyone wears hoodies!!!

However I haven't seen this film myself yet so I guess I can't really comment on my own opinion yet.

EDIT:

I stand corrected it was bad. I wish I could delete that first sentence.

I saw the film yesterday with a friend as a long time Spidey fan to see how it turned out and I didn't like it. I disliked Peter Parker being a hodgepodge of a lot of things that weren't a nerd since it seemed really against the character. I also thought the CGI wasn't that great ESPECIALLY of the Spider that bites Spiderman and the scene underwater. Similarly I thought that the Lizard was a mix of decent design with the skin and tail mixed with moments that annoyed me as a fan (such as the lack of his Lab Coat for the majority of the film!). Similarly him as Connors vs him as the Lizard was too disconnected without a full explanation of why they were so different (imagine Green Goblin from the first film but without anyone stating that what made him Goblin made him crazy as well). I was also really pissed off about what they did with Uncle Ben's death. Felt rushed and lacked emotional weight.

That's not to say there weren't any good things. Spidey as an attempt at funny I liked as it was entertaining, as was Parker's inability to control his powers to begin with. Also pretty cool were some of the Lizard/Spidey fights where spiderman looked fast and sleek and The Lizard fought with his tail which was cool!

I not sure what's more pathetic. Bob's fanboy rage or his attempt to be even more like Yahtzee by speaking at his speed.

So.. I get this feeling that you didn't like it.

Shirokurou:
Actually, it wasn't that bad.
I enjoyed it.
What bugged me was that Peter Parker is now a smooth-talking hipster, but otherwise it was good.
No Avengers or Watchmen, but 7/10 kinda good.

I thought he seemed kinda stoned throughout, at least when he was as peter parker, and I liked it. I didn't like the lack of "With great power must also come great responsibility", but yeah, It was pretty good.

I think Batman is gonna blow it out of the water though.

BlacklightVirus:
I not sure what's more pathetic. Bob's fanboy rage or his attempt to be even more like Yahtzee by speaking at his speed.

No, what's truly pathetic (and utterly HILARIOUS) is people throwing a tantrum at Bob because of his opinion. The comments section is amusing as hell with how juvenile and insecure people are acting.

Ivan Dowding-Hopkins:

To give the audience a half-assed film (or even just a "good" film) is honestly wasting potential.

Ah to think there was a time when people were happy to see 'good' films.

Stop charging me $10 for a movie, and I'll go back to accepting "good" as appropriate quality for a film.

As is, I'm not gonna pay $10 for a "good" film when I can just wait until it's out on DVD and rent it for $1, because that's a rip-off. :P

The only time I go to the movies any more is when the film is a "great" film. The Avengers, or one of the Batman films, etc. I don't go to the movies for "good" at that price. I was raised in the days when you could watch "great" for something like $3-5, so I'm naturally not gonna be inclined to waste money on "good" or "ok" for twice that.

Sounds like a great movies I'm really going to spend my hard earned cash on....
Oh well maybe Ice age 4 then?...

(heh captcha "spend time" sounds like something I won't be doing at the cinema...)

Timnoldzim:
Oh, wow, somebody call the wahmbulance, guys, Bob's angry!

I mean, if you don't like a movie then you don't like a movie, but I don't think that's really his feelings on this. He seems to be mostly upset about the circumstances behind the film's creation (which really doesn't mean jack shit, no matter what he says) and it's deviations from the source material (JJJ isn't in it? Ohhhh, nooooo, movie ruined!), rather than the film itself. And he's had it in for this thing since the beginning; he's always wanted it to bomb because how dare they fire Sam Raimi!

I have never heard Bob be this legitimately angry before, and considering how he's previously talked about gender, racial, and sexual politics, that REALLY makes me sad. I know he's "proud to be a geek" and all that, but it's just a movie, and one that he's clearly more angry about being different than he is about being bad.

Bob, please leave Fanboy Mode and try and enter your Legitimate Film Critic Mode.

Seems to me, Bob had plenty of objective criticisms here, beyond just fanboy rage. Most of the comments he made at the beginning were about the narrative being contrived and the characters being uninteresting. Basically that the movie just isn't doing anything interesting with the franchise. Now, I haven't seen it, so I don't know if what Bob has to say actually bears out, but it sounds like the movie is just going to be bland and forgettable for most. If you happen to be a big fan of Spider Man, then you'll probably hate it as much as Bob did. Or, you know, if you can see the machinations of the studio system working behind the scenes, motivated only to crank out a product and not really by the desire to create something genuinely interesting or special (which Bob, of all people, can), you certainly won't have any reason to give this movie the benefit of the doubt.

DRTJR:
...How do you make a Spider man movie with out J. Jonah Jameson?

Wait what? Any remaining urge to see this movie is gone.

AS for what Bob said...the previews for the movie looked like rubbish to begin with and I always found the Lizard to be a silly villain. Sadly, family and friends alike have been ranting about how "amazing" this movie is. I tend to agree with Bob though, so I think I'll wait a while to see this, if at all.

Aiddon:

No, what's truly pathetic (and utterly HILARIOUS) is people throwing a tantrum at Bob because of his opinion. The comments section is amusing as hell with how juvenile and insecure people are acting.

^This

I enjoyed this movie. I went in skeptical, not really sure it was going to be any good, and was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't "amazing", maybe, but it was good for me.

And I must admit to the belief that I enjoyed it more than the original trilogy's beginning. It has been awhile since I saw that one, so perhaps I'm not remembering it well, but the impression I have in my mind is of a lot of seriousness and sadness. This one has some of that but it also has some other stuff too. Shiny spectacles and some humor, mainly, which I don't remember being as present in the previous origin movie. Although perhaps it's just my memory failing me.

NO MOVIEBOB, tell us how you REALLY feel!

Sad, the action scenes in previews actually look pretty bad ass. Too bad the movie has no substance to back it up.

While we're on the subject of bad superhero movies, I recently saw the first Ghost Rider film. Holy shit is that thing a pile of flaming garbage. I literally could not finish it. Too corny, too stupid. It makes Green Lantern look like Spider-Man 2. It is without a doubt the worst movie I've seen in quite some time, and I LOVE Nicholas Cage.

Here is my beef with the movie, it wasn't a super hero movie. Peter Parker is a nerd, and is picked on in highschool. What I got from this movie was that he was general outcast, but it's not bad he's just kind of a loner and mildly misunderstood. I also didn't grasp much that he really cared about anyone, and Ben Parker didn't quite feel to do anything for Peter. What happened to the "With great power comes great responsibility!" While the movie was fun, I do prefer the Raimi version over this. It was campy, yeah, but the first one really grasped the concept of Spiderman is a hero! This one more-so showed that Spiderman had to clean up a mess, and has a massive chip on his shoulder. While I know what they were trying to capture, I do wish they really embraced as well that Peter finally understood that he is a hero, and the city needs him.

If they make a second movie I hope they step it up, and drop this whole twilight love thing they have going on. Hell I was excited for the first movie, even dressed up like Black Cat! Granted many thought I was catwoman. So yeah, they need to really sit down and have someone that clearly shows talent write the script, and screenplays.

Spent five bucks on it, liked it. Thought it was a little more serious than the Sam R. version. Though over all on par with it. I stopped watching these for Bob's actual opinion a long time ago. He's like the Yahtzee of movies: You just watch him to see how much the current offering is going to piss him off.

Ranorak:

Diegolomac:

Ranorak:
This is bizzaro world.

No, I don't mean that the release of a rushed, cheap spider-man licence renewal movies would be a miss, I mean, the video game is actually pretty fun.

We have a movie that has a ...not-terrible video game, but this time the movie sucks.

It's like X-Men Origins Wolverine all over again.

I keep hearing that, but never actually played the game.

You recommend it?

Its a pretty good game, it can get a bit frustrating at a few points but I'd say a solid B to B+ game IMHO

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here