I really struggled with this review because it felt more like a rant. Obviously being a Spiderman fan since before you can remember would make it difficult to remove any bias, expectation or overly intense reaction (whether it's positive or negative doesn't matter) but damn...
Whenever someone asks me why I think your opinion should be taken with a grain of salt half the time, I'll point em to this video. You've been against this movie since before anything got announced besides that it's going to happen. And it shows. Even if this movie was The Dark Knight levels of good, you'd probably still say it was bad.
He likes Phantom Menace <.< credibility = 0 after that imo.
Also your talking about a guy with immense bias issues, just watch his gameoverthinker series, theres always a hint that the pinnacle of games was the super mario series and everything else and every other console than nintendo's are garbage, moviebob+nintendo\mario= <3 BIG TIME
Really Bob? There's areas to criticize but destroying the movie like you did was quite unreasonable. Comparing it to the Green Lantern garbage was uncalled for.
I finally got round to watching this review after hearing it gained a certain level of notoriety, and I can see why. The film was barely critiqued, and when it was, Bob proved contradictory. All the characters were one-note and stereotypical, but Peter Parker's character was all over the place? Now, you can argue one side of that argument effectively, but trying to use both of them at once comes across poorly. Couple that kind of slipshod arguing with abusive levels of nitpicking made this hard to watch, frankly. Complaining about the web shooters blinking red? Really? Is that what movie criticism is now?
This is the worst kind of review, in that it's the voicing of an obvious ulterior agenda disguised as a review. This came across to me as Moviebob longing to stick it to the man, man, rather than actually critique the film in any kind of analytical manner. I still can't figure out exactly why he hated it so much as a film. Oh, I get why he hated the idea of rebooting a 10 year old movie franchise, but from watching this review, it just seemed like a bunch of angry words thrown at a wall to see what sticks. Lazy, insulting, contemptible, and more, with no justification for that besides "CASH IN".
I wondered as I watched this review if this was all perfect deadpan sarcasm. Shame it wasn't.
How could you say this is LESS faithful to the source material when everything from Peter's quipping in fighting and the mechanical rather than biological web swingers is more faithful TO THE COMICS.
No, it was only unfaithful to Sam Rami, this film was much more faithful to the character and stories that Stan Lee's wrote, even down to the title.
That seem to be the problem here, you are too enamoured with the Sam Rami's take on spider man you cannot accept what was done different by a director who hasn't made cult films like Evil Dead, but may be perfectly suited to a superhero movie like Amazing Spiderman.
It's not "Just so happens" it is precisely because of Gwen Stacey and Richard Parker working at Oscorp that lead to Peter Parker sneaking into Oscorp and first getting both Gwen's attention and getting his superpowers. Everything comes from Oscorp.
I think any true spiderman fan should be all DAMN SKIPPY that it is getting a reboot so soon after Spiderman 3 was such a failure.
Really, why should we have to wait another 20 or 30 years? Comics get rebooted in such short intervals and Comic fans are GRATEFUL for a swift reboot when things go wrong rather than trying to languish on or worse, just put the entire franchise on the cooler for many years, decades even.
Same thing happened with Transformers. It did so well on name alone they made two more craptacular films.
I saw this movie before I watched Bob's review. He rants. He raves. But for all of it, his critique essentially explained what I hated about this film. It wasn't good, and to be perfectly honest, I feel like all of Bob's criticisms hold water. I think he was angry at it, but I thought his video even explained that. A movie made for all the wrong reasons turns out to be a bad film. For someone who watches a lot of movies, you can't help but be disappointed in the result, and I think anger seems a perfectly normal reaction here. Certainly, considering that this could have been a good movie.
No J J Jameson? There is literally no reason to see this movie!
"It's not exactly like the comics!"
"There are plot holes because I didn't pay attention!"
"I would have let this slide if Sam Raimi did this!"
Bitter fanboy rage is all I'm hearing.
I liked this movie a lot more than previous Spider-man movies. Does that make me a bad person? (also, I've never read comics)
I'm watching it now and I'm about halfway in.
It should be so much better. Why isn't it better?
It's not the acting or the red flash on the webshooters... I think it is actually as deep in as the script.
To each their own I guess. I thought the new Spiderman was pretty good despite the reasons why it was made. When I think approved by committee and accountants the first thing that pops in my mind is The Avengers. That will probably get me a lot of hate but that movie felt by the numbers to me.
I know I'm a bit late to the conversation, but I'm gonna jump in anyway.
I didn't think this movie was THAT bad, but it did leave a bad taste in my mouth, and now I know why. Everything Bob points out is true (yes, that crane bit was incredibly stupid and had nowhere near the gravitas of the train scene).
Most of my anger at all this comes from the fact that this only came out 5 years after Spider-Man 3. That one did disappoint me (and it wasn't just the dancing), but I still saw the whole thing as salvageable. Was I the only one looking forward to John Malkovich as the Vulture? If they didn't like the way the series was going, they could have just told Sam Raimi he wasn't allowed to write it anymore; just direct.
No matter what happens from here, I want Sony to sell this property back to Marvel. Same for Fox with all mutant-related stuff.