Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 15 NEXT
 

Having seen the movie last night, if that's all it takes to make Moviebob go on a "fuck this movie and everything it stands for" tangent, maybe Green Lantern and Expendables weren't as bad as you say.

Also, Emma Stone >>> Kirsten Dunst

first one more day, then spiderman 3, then spectacular spiderman being cancelled, then the stupid ultimate spiderman, and now this?
someone up there really hates spiderman

crimson sickle2:
Why are the facebook comments mostly against Bob, but these comments are usually in support of his opinion. Regardless of the dissonance, the bias going into the movie is well deserved. I doubt any single person can view one of the trailers and believe that the movie will be anything but terrible.

Because the facebook comments are primarily people who come to the escapist for the features and are commenting because they have seen the movie already, the forum comments are people who are active in the forums and are commenting because they've seen the trailer.

The movie was good. Bob's gonna get TONS of flak for this review, because it's pretty off base. This spiderman is infinitely closer to the source material than the other movies if nothing else, so all those complaints can be thrown out the window. The only thing they really messed with was making Peter's parents scientists involved in the plot...

But when the real story has them as undercover CIA agents recruited by S.H.I.E.L.D. that got pregnant with Peter on a mission to save Wolverine from the Russians, the change is reasonable...

tstorm823:

crimson sickle2:
Why are the facebook comments mostly against Bob, but these comments are usually in support of his opinion. Regardless of the dissonance, the bias going into the movie is well deserved. I doubt any single person can view one of the trailers and believe that the movie will be anything but terrible.

Because the facebook comments are primarily people who come to the escapist for the features and are commenting because they have seen the movie already, the forum comments are people who are active in the forums and are commenting because they've seen the trailer.

The movie was good. Bob's gonna get TONS of flak for this review, because it's pretty off base. This spiderman is infinitely closer to the source material than the other movies if nothing else, so all those complaints can be thrown out the window. The only thing they really messed with was making Peter's parents scientists involved in the plot...

But when the real story has them as undercover CIA agents recruited by S.H.I.E.L.D. that got pregnant with Peter on a mission to save Wolverine from the Russians, the change is reasonable...

I think they were borrowing more from the ultimate line of comics on the science bit. There, Peters father was a scientist. And killed by The Hulk during an experiment... yeah that wouldn't work if you wanted Spidey in the avengers movie.

Again, I loved the film and saw it, and Bob is -waaaaaay- off here. Either that or he thinks it's Spider-Man that's important and not Peter Parker.

Honestly, I'm not suprised it turned out that way.

draythefingerless:

i would not take this review as is people. it stinks of fanboy wishes being broken, causing an aggravation of his opinion on the movie.

He mentioned lens flares. That is Bobs short hand for "This reminds me of that Star Trek Movie I hated so I hate this to". A Movie which is the only thing keeping the Star Trek franchise alive right now.

After Moviebobs recommendations of Prometheus, Ted and the distinctly mediocre The Avengers I am expecting this to be brilliant. And need I not bring up Sucker Punch?!

Oh and next time put a spoiler warning before you divulge the back story of Peters parents and their relations to everything! Just 'cause you don't like the film doesn't mean you can ruin it for everyone else Bob!

74% on Rotten Tomatoes vs Bobs opinion (which to me holds very little weight), I think I will go with Rotten Tomatoes on this one.

TheFederation:
first one more day, then spiderman 3, then spectacular spiderman being cancelled, then the stupid ultimate spiderman, and now this?
someone up there really hates spiderman

Have you seen the movie? It's actually pretty good.
Most of the reviews have been positive as well.
The movie is pretty damn close to the comics as well. So I'm not sure about this "some up there really hates Spider-Man."

OT: Saw it, loved it. Great aesthetics, amazing acting from everyone. The Lizard was kind of disappointing, but the story was told so well and the characters were represented so well, I ended up forgiving it. Also, Garfield was a GREAT Peter, he actually had some snark, something Tobey (or more like Raimi) forgot.

And I'm sure people have already been going on about this but Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey was infinitely better than Kirsten Dunst's melodramatic Mary-Jane.

Movie Bob obviously really wanted to hate this movie, and refused to see it in any other way. Soulless? Most complimented on how well the leads worked together, and how emotional their interactions were. Whatever Bob, I always took your reviews less seriously than I did ZP.

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

No J. Jonah Jameson?

I was actually going to go see the movies but...now I don't want to...

My problem with Bob in this is that he is so focused on how 'they ruined the story' of spiderman and how 'Spidey is soOooooOoOoO different than the comics' that he doesn't seem to get that...it is a comic book movie. Comics of the same characters can be dramatically different from one another, just based on who is making it. To me, this movie just seems to be someone else's take on Spiderman. I'm going to go see it, also because Mr. Ebert said it was probably the second best Spiderman movie in his opinion, and this isn't coming from a possible 'fanboy' standpoint but from a pretty neutral party.

Sounds about right. The plot synopsis I read does pretty much paint the film as utter garbage that sounds like it was written personally by has-beens like Joe Quesada or Jeph Loeb

Glad to hear from somebody who cares that this is unfun garbage. I'd thought about seeing it, but it sounds like there just isn't a point.

Edit: Huh. I decided to go against Bob's and my own advice to watch this one and...really liked it. In contrast to Bob's description I wouldn't say that Garfield is playing nearly so much a cypher as just a semi socially retarded, sometimes petty but often earnest young man. You know, a teenager. They do it differently from the comic but frankly I'm tired of people trying to do the same damn thing over and over.

It has some second act trouble and this spiderman really doesn't seem all that comfortable with snarky quips and one-liners, but as a character piece I think it was surprisingly successful. Martin Sheen is also an excellent uncle Ben who doesn't need a catchphrase to be poignant. Very glad I decided to see it.

Yup. And the sad thing is you're totally right. No matter how much this movie sucks (and it does) people are still going to watch it. Hell, just on facebook i've seen about a billion posts saying how awesome it is. So expect sequels

PsychedelicDiamond:
Woah, that's harsh. I almost feel bad about it now but... i liked it. I really really liked it. Maybe more than i liked Sam Raimis first Spiderman. Uh... so... i guess i have terrible taste in movies. Guess i have to work on that.

I feel like hes going after it more as an unecessary reboot here because the way he described The Lizard man wanting to conquer the world reminded me of the 90s Spiderman Movie more than anything.
*EDIT* Wow I derped there I meant 90s Cartoon.

Had a feeling you weren't going to like this one, Bob.

And as far as detesting the ugly business side in how this movie got made, I am right there with ya.

I've heard mixed reviews about it over all, some liking it, others calling it crap. I haven't seen it yet, but it seems the general opinion is that it's OK. And if a reboot this soon is just OK, it seems hard to justify its existence.

I'll admit to prejudging the movie unfairly, especially since the second Spider-Man movie from the last trilogy is marked as my personal favorite movie, and this one, in certain respects seems to be Sony saying "screw you" to the previous trilogy, and there's a few aspects about this one that just piss me off, some of them incredibly petty, as you mentioned, I also think the costume looks terrible.
As it stands though, I just have to say, there was a lot of vindication to be had from watching this review. It may be unfair, but hearing someone hate this movie as much I think I would hate it is very satisfying.

I don't know that much about spider man the comic series. I enjoyed spiderman 1 and 2, and I'm all about staying true to the source material.

That being said, could it be, Bob, that you're biased against this movie because:

A) You want to see Spiderman go back to Marvel?
B) This is only being made so Spiderman stays with sony?

Now, I haven't seen the movie. I'm going to, one way or another, but I'm going in with an everyman's eye. I'm looking for enjoyment and fun. Would I get that from this movie?

shadowmagus:

draythefingerless:
Seems to me all the complaints have been based on your conceptions of classical spider man. i did not see any complaints on the movie as a movie itself apart from CGI and the lizard character. you go thru saying peter parker is emo, skater, slacker. you would have prefered a single stereotyped character? it seems to me he is more of a normal person, more grounded on reality. a real person =/= stereotype.

I think the problem isn't with stereotypes, its the fact that Peter Parker has NEVER been an emo/skater/slacket. He has always been a geek, a science nerd. To gloss over that part of his persona (which they don't even commit to because he eventually builds the web throwers), is a huge change from who Peter Parker has always been. It reeks of trying to pull in the teenager summer goers by trying to create a "hip" Spiderman. A change is fine. Completely rewritting the character traits that make Peter Parker who he is? Overboard.

and what would you define as being a geek, a science nerd?(wich btw, is not what defines peter parker as an essential character)

im sorry, but it is your preconception of geek and science nerd that is wrong, not the movies. a science genius does not have to fall into your vision of a virgin shirt wearing googley eye doofus. peter parker is a genius, a science lover, and a deeply troubled teenager. that is what has defined him. he is RELATABLE. the fact that you are defending that a character should be defined by this one dimension, by this stereotype, is appauling. characters should be complex and interesting, not one liners.

Kumagawa Misogi:
This movie is going to make Sony sooo much money :) MiB 3 has made $600 million already and i'll bet this makes evem more.

Why Movie Bob is WRONG AGAIN he liked Scott Pilgrim which to say aweful is not enough and Sucker Punch ergh. Bob has little taste.

What's the point of putting numbers? Just to piss people off, particularly Moviebob? Just because movies make crap loads of money doesn't mean they're good i.e Transformers, Twilight oh and MiB3 which was a shit movie compared to the first two.

And nobody forced you to watch Scott Pilgrim and Sucker Punch.

draythefingerless:

shadowmagus:

draythefingerless:
Seems to me all the complaints have been based on your conceptions of classical spider man. i did not see any complaints on the movie as a movie itself apart from CGI and the lizard character. you go thru saying peter parker is emo, skater, slacker. you would have prefered a single stereotyped character? it seems to me he is more of a normal person, more grounded on reality. a real person =/= stereotype.

I think the problem isn't with stereotypes, its the fact that Peter Parker has NEVER been an emo/skater/slacket. He has always been a geek, a science nerd. To gloss over that part of his persona (which they don't even commit to because he eventually builds the web throwers), is a huge change from who Peter Parker has always been. It reeks of trying to pull in the teenager summer goers by trying to create a "hip" Spiderman. A change is fine. Completely rewritting the character traits that make Peter Parker who he is? Overboard.

and what would you define as being a geek, a science nerd?(wich btw, is not what defines peter parker as an essential character)

im sorry, but it is your preconception of geek and science nerd that is wrong, not the movies. a science genius does not have to fall into your vision of a virgin shirt wearing googley eye doofus. peter parker is a genius, a science lover, and a deeply troubled teenager. that is what has defined him. he is RELATABLE. the fact that you are defending that a character should be defined by this one dimension, by this stereotype, is appauling. characters should be complex and interesting, not one liners.

Now I know your flame-baiting because that's exactly what Peter Parker is. A nerd. He was not cool, he had massive self-esteem issues. He is the perennial geek, which is why he was so appealing to the comic book reading audience. Troubled is fine, but changing the premise of what made the character to sell it to the audience is bad form. Read the comics and get back to me, otherwise we're done here.

Little harsh there Bob, I'll have to go see this for myself :)

Krion_Vark:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Woah, that's harsh. I almost feel bad about it now but... i liked it. I really really liked it. Maybe more than i liked Sam Raimis first Spiderman. Uh... so... i guess i have terrible taste in movies. Guess i have to work on that.

I feel like hes going after it more as an unecessary reboot here because the way he described The Lizard man wanting to conquer the world reminded me of the 90s Spiderman Movie more than anything.

To be fair: the villain was probably the weakest part of the movie. The Lizard was too much like Doctor Octopus from Spderman 2. But i didnÄt mind all that much because Amazing Spiderman tried to be mainly about Spiderman himself and not as much about the villain.

Kungfu_Teddybear:
I heard a few reviewers has been saying that it's bad, but there has been people saying it's good. I'm still going to see it because I like to form my own opinions and never take anything a reviewer says to heart.

can you at least wait till after opening weekend? because that's the only time that matters and however good this and raimi's was i'd really like to see sony lose it and marvel give it a shot.

Was I the only one waiting for you to say Just kidding all the way through that?
Also ignore the people that say you're talking too fast. I heard and understood everything you said.

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?

shadowmagus:

draythefingerless:

shadowmagus:

I think the problem isn't with stereotypes, its the fact that Peter Parker has NEVER been an emo/skater/slacket. He has always been a geek, a science nerd. To gloss over that part of his persona (which they don't even commit to because he eventually builds the web throwers), is a huge change from who Peter Parker has always been. It reeks of trying to pull in the teenager summer goers by trying to create a "hip" Spiderman. A change is fine. Completely rewritting the character traits that make Peter Parker who he is? Overboard.

and what would you define as being a geek, a science nerd?(wich btw, is not what defines peter parker as an essential character)

im sorry, but it is your preconception of geek and science nerd that is wrong, not the movies. a science genius does not have to fall into your vision of a virgin shirt wearing googley eye doofus. peter parker is a genius, a science lover, and a deeply troubled teenager. that is what has defined him. he is RELATABLE. the fact that you are defending that a character should be defined by this one dimension, by this stereotype, is appauling. characters should be complex and interesting, not one liners.

Now I know your flame-baiting because that's exactly what Peter Parker is. A nerd. He was not cool, he had massive self-esteem issues. He is the perennial geek, which is why he was so appealing to the comic book reading audience. Troubled is fine, but changing the premise of what made the character to sell it to the audience is bad form. Read the comics and get back to me, otherwise we're done here.

Actually, if you look at the movie you'd notice that Peter wasn't cool. Skateboard + Hoodie doesn't = cool. In the comics, Peter used to ride a bike every now and again. All they did was replace that with a skateboard. And if you think about the look he had from when he came out, yes that is what nerd and geeks were wearing at the time... a good 40+ years ago. Clothing has changed as well as the times and he's just dressed like an average kid. Which is how he is now in the comic, and when he was still alive in the Ultimate Comics line.

I've been reading the Amazing Spider-Man for 20 years and it's just a matter of times changing, so he changes with them. Example:

This is an example of how he dressed. His clothing changed with the times. Be it his age, or what was socially normal at the time IRL.

Let's see...Would I rather pay for whatever generic rom-com is in theaters and then jump seats to ASM to cover my tracks? Or take advantage of the fact that the Avengers is probably playing at the local discount theater? Decisions, decisions.

Oh, and for those of you who felt the need to post a statement along the lines of "Bob's opinion is wrong!", some advice: You know what the difference is between a movie critic and a movie fan? It's not about whether you've seen enough movies to identify good/bad bits, it's how well you can articulate your feelings.

I think it's interresting.
When you reviewed Scre-four-m, it was basicaly just ranting, kind of funny, but basically just unprofessional ranting.
Now, as you mention yourself at the end, you seem to be REALY annoyed by this movie, your review isn't funny, but at least you use arguments why the movie is bad.
I never had any expectations about this movie and will very likely not see it in theater, so i can't say if i share what you say about it, not yet, but i think the review itself is rather good, better than your Scre-four-m review in my opinion.

Anyone else notice the split between the comments here and the facebook ones on the video?
Any way I'll probably end up seeing this movie as a last resort when I got nothing else going on.

Well, I don't think I've ever seen Bob this angry...

That being said, Rotten Tomatoes places Amazing Spiderman at 74% reviewer/84% audience, so Bob's probably just pissed that they messed up the Spiderman lore and has unconsciously nitpicked his way into hating the rest of it.

I can't help but feel that Bob didn't enjoy this film, there's something about this review but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Sadly, I'll still probably be one of the 'help the movie studio make profit' crowd.

Did.....did we see the same movie?

Looking through these comments is just pathetic. Most people here are deciding not to see the movie because of Bob's pointless fanboy rage. Mos reviews call it a solid film, even Roger Ebert enjoyed it. I've seen the movie and it is NO-WHERE near as bad as Bob is saying. It's no The Dark Knight but it's a overall a solid film.

Nooners:
I figured this would would suck, sadly. Thanks for the advance warning, Bob. Should've listened to you when you said not to see Green Lantern.

TorchofThanatos:
okay then, thats another movie I wont go see
I wonder if the Avengers is still playing... hmmmmmm...

rayen020:
never planned to see it and now i'll make sure not to.

Also why do all your tuesday reviews have movies that suck?

FastLogan2400:
Ouch. I was really hoping this movie wasn't going to suck as hard as everyone thought it was going to, but now I'm definitely not seeing it after hearing this.

C'mon guys, form you own opinions!

PsychedelicDiamond:

Krion_Vark:

PsychedelicDiamond:
Woah, that's harsh. I almost feel bad about it now but... i liked it. I really really liked it. Maybe more than i liked Sam Raimis first Spiderman. Uh... so... i guess i have terrible taste in movies. Guess i have to work on that.

I feel like hes going after it more as an unecessary reboot here because the way he described The Lizard man wanting to conquer the world reminded me of the 90s Spiderman Movie more than anything.

To be fair: the villain was probably the weakest part of the movie. The Lizard was too much like Doctor Octopus from Spderman 2. But i didnÄt mind all that much because Amazing Spiderman tried to be mainly about Spiderman himself and not as much about the villain.

What I meant is that in the 90s cartoon is that The Lizardman after becoming the Lizard man loses his mind and tries to conquer the world. But then later gets his mind back and returns to being Doc Connors for a while but goes back and forth between the two.

Didn't think it was so bad. Not as good as Spiderman 1 and 2 but I actually liked it better than number 3. Oh well, to each his own, now back to trying and make that gay oreo a reality.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . . . 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