Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 15 NEXT
 

I've been a Spider-Man fan since I was three or five years old and I absolutely adore him. I saw the film twice and I love every minute of it! Sure there were a one or two things that they didn't include that made me a tad disappointed, but overall this film is THE Spider-Man film I have been waiting for. Andrew Garfield totally nails it as Peter Parker and he looks like him too. The film also tugged on my heartstrings where as the previous trilogy didn't do anything for me.

The previous trilogy was a total cheese-fest, the main cast's acting was mediocre and I've always cringed at the dialogue between Peter and Mary Jane. The only actors that I felt that stood out were Bruce Campbell and J.K Simmons. Other than the costume design, Tobey's Spider-Man didn't act like Spider-Man. Hardly any wisecracking and taunting of his enemies.

Go watch this film if you love Spider-Man because this is the one I was waiting for and they delivered.

Also to those who aren't going to watch this film because they want it back with Marvel Studios, go watch the film seriously. If you didn't know, Sony and Marvel might make a deal to have Spider-Man join the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There was a rumour that the OSCORP building was going to be in The Avengers, however they took it out because of the timing of the films. There were interviews conducted that have asked if Spider-Man could join the MCU and they said if Spider-Man does well, they might work something out.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/eyegloo/news/?a=62896

Edit: Fixed the link issue.

Zing:
People actually enjoy listening to his obviously impetuous fanboy rage? I find these videos my least favourite of his. Bordering on unprofessional if anything.

Hey, it's rather amusing, in a, say... Spoony kind of way.

(is it too soon yet?)

Sonicron:
Saw the movie a few days ago, and aside from agreeing with the points that the Lizard looks like crap and some characters are one-dimensional, I have to call bullcrap on this entire review. Folks, if you're in the market for a fresh reinterpretation of the characters and the source material that doesn't feel the need to slavishly stick to every single detail laid out in the old stories it's based on, this movie will deliver, and you won't be sorry for the bucks you spend to go see it. Seriously, this review is 90% undeserved bile in my opinion, so if you're at all interested in this flic go see it instead of skipping it because Bob says you should.

I'm with you, this movie was really good, and aside from a few small issues (The Lizard's face, Peter dropping the hunt for Ben's killer), it was a great movie. Spidey had the smart mouth, was a realistic guy who got really nervous around cute girls. The action scenes were good, and even though they did outright say "with great power comes great responsibility", I LOVED the way they handled it. "Peter, your father had a rule he lived by, a principal, really. He said that whenever someone has the ability to do good things, he's obligated to do it. That's not a choice, that's an obligation." It was explained in a way I can see an actual surrogate parent explaining things to a high school kid.

I loved Garfield as Peter, he played it SO well. I had doubts from the trailers, but seriously, it's like he was designed to be Peter Parker. Tobey Macguire was just a horrible Peter Parker. He never fit the role, was never snappy enough, and really just came across as a pushover, even in costume.

Seriously, this is a good movie, and well worth watching. If it gets a sequel, and I hope it does, I hope they go with some more inventive names, though. Perhaps "The Spectacular Spider-Man"?

HumpinHop:

SilverHammerMan:
I hate to be this kind of guy, but I really can't describe how happy I am to see that I was totally right about this movie.
Also, one of Bob's complaints about the movie feeling coincidental is kind of funny since in the original comics, everything is very much not coincidental. Curt Connors is just some scientist, he doesn't know Spider-Man until later, Doc Ock is also just a guy, hell, Steve Ditko, the original writer/artist/Stan-Lee-collaborator-who-may-or-may-not-have-done-most-of-the-work, is alleged to have left the series originally because he felt it was unrealistic that the Green Goblin "just happened" to be someone Peter Parker knew.
I didn't see this on opening night and I have no plans to watch it at any point in the foreseeable future.

Don't you think shutting out all possibility of seeing a film based on one critic is a little close minded, especially to gloat about it?

Roger Ebert gave this 3.5/4 Stars, and the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are at 74%.

It's not a little close minded, it's very close minded. But it's not something that I'm doing just based on Bob's review, I was aware of the dubious studio politics behind it well before I watched this review and nothing I saw in promotion of the movie drew me in. I have seen the other reviews, and they are positive, but the fact remains that even independent of Bob, this is just not a movie that I want to see, the trailers didn't interest me and seemed to hint at a changed origin that I feel misunderstands the core of the character.
This isn't a movie that I want to see, and I've know that for a while. Maybe in a couple of months I'll watch it on Netflix or something, but I do not want to support this movie in the theaters. Close minded yes, but based on my own observations, not just a single critic's review.

i think another problem (stemming from the one you raised bob, about the reason from its inception) is that the story from the first spider-man movie was probably the best way to start off a spider-man film saga. it had all the right characters, all the important events in it, was true the to comic, the only way it could have been made any sweeter was perhaps if they had the whole gwen stacy thing ratehr than jumping straight to MJ, but then... how do you end a movie with the whole guilt thing over how gwen died (in the comics)?
that'd be really neat! the first movie could be gwen, and all the green goblin stuff, second movie could have... whoever, but as a subplot, felicia hardy/black cat is hanging around, teasing spidey's balls and what not, and in the end he sort of accepts that they can't work (or she does, like in the comics) but at the same time, MJ's hanging aronud, just as a friend sort of way, but clearly with some chemistry. and then in the third and presumably final film it's all about MJ as love interests go. why not?
sorry, i had a point here somehwere... YES! to make a perfect spider-man movie, only very fews things need to be altered from the original first film, but they can't justify making the same film again with a few teaks here and there, so they have to make up all this other bullshit. not because it's a good idea, just because it needs to be as far removed from the original move as possible, even though that unfortunately means being as far removed from the source material as well.
i'm as mad as you are bob>:( i promise they won't get MY money!

Wait, so the video game tie in is potentially BETTER? Hmm...

...I'll reserve judgment for now since it is not currently out where I am (unlike Avengers films) but this does make me think twice. I haven't much buzz yet but then again I've currently avoid browsing Rotten Tomatoes.

But for some reason, despite all that has been said, all I can say is YAY! AGE OF MYTHOLOGY ZEUS WAS SHOWN!

Boo poorly made film. Hooray return of credit gags!

I'll give Bob credit. While I don't often agree with some of his assorted rantings and tangents. I have found that he does seem to have a high degree of accuracy in predicting what I would like and dislike in a movie. This looks like one to avoid. Even when it comes out on video. It looks Green Hornet level bad.

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?

Hell yeah I recommend it, it's one of the very few movie tie-in games from the last 10 years or so that is actually quite good. It's not Spiderman 2 level of awesomeness, but it's still pretty awesome. Especially because it adds a lot more stuff to the story, like the Sentinel production facility. And it's also the only Wolverine game out there where you actually feel as Wolverine, where you get to see your body regenerating and bullet holes closing, covering once again with skin your adamantium skeleton.

EDIT: Though on retrospect the game should have ended after the Sentinel boss fight, because the fight with Gambit is kinda buggy and the only thing more uninteresting than that is the Deadpool fight. Although that isn't exactly the game's fault, since the Deadpool fight was already stupid in the movie.

I didn't plan to see it after the terrible third movie, and this just put the nail in the coffin.

TorchofThanatos:
I wonder if the Avengers is still playing... hmmmmmm...

Well it is still playing in Perth, Australia.... for one session a day starting at 8:50 pm in one cinema location (Event cinemas Innaloo) in 3d (The 2d version is not showing anymore!).

Not staying up that late to go to a movie!

I love seeing people ride to the defense of a film that was made purely to milk them of dollars, as if they were moneycows. As if you kicked over their milk machine and they're like HEY. THE FARMER PAID GOOD MONEY FOR THAT.

Only the analogy maybe falls apart, because it's possible that the farmer actually has a little affection for the cows.

J. Jonah Jameson isn't in this movie?!!! *FLIPS TABLE*

This review has given me the option to never see this film but unfortunately my current circumstances in which my wife and I are staying at her sisters place to take care of our nieces and nephew because she recently had her third kid but that also meant my getting a never ending earful of, UNCLE I WANNA SEE SPIDER MAN!, so we have to see it tomorrow.

Dastardly:
While I typically agree with you, you're apparently waaaay too close to this material. It's not that the flaws you've pointed out are all untrue, it's just that they're not nearly as big as you've made them.

And as to "Who is Peter Parker?" this movie created a more authentic Parker than I've seen yet. Not all geeks are the same kind of geek. Not all smart kids are the antithesis of slackers. He had dimension, in that he had the kind of conflicting identity and motivations that real high school kids have. (I work with high school kids every day, and this one felt like a high school kid, particularly one with Peter's home situation)

THE BIG THING:

They can't continue to tell these stories to the original audience. They can't continue to pay the ever-increasing tribute to the "core fans." Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, these are characters that, to a degree, have outlived their audiences. What other medium does this but comics? (And, to a lesser-but-analogous degree, James Bond movies. Much-needed reboot, because the social climate is very different from when the first movies were made.)

Trying to keep the same character alive and fresh and interesting, and staying roughly the same age, and yet still appeasing to the "loyal fans," is the entire reason comics develop the twisted, knotted continuity and insane escalation that you've so often decried in your COMICS ARE WEIRD pieces on The Big Picture. Stories need endings to keep from getting this outlandish, and it's not always wrong to re-tell them a little differently after that ending.

With a lot of these reboots, there is a recognition that the characters are outliving their original audience (or at least their attention span). They're maintaining connections to the original, in hopes of bringing some of the old fans forward, but they're mostly trying to bring in new fans.

The problem when some folks get a little too "invested" in a particular version of a character, dating back even to childhood, is that those people begin to feel like investors. That is to say, they feel they're entitled to a particular return on that investment. And when it doesn't pay off that way, they get angry.

Batman. The whole DC universe. The heroes of the Avengers. Spider-Man. James Bond. They've all recently gotten reboots. And is there a huge financial motivation? Sure there is! You've got at least a somewhat guaranteed audience over trying to create an entirely new character. But also, there is a love that audiences and writers have over the core concepts of these characters... but not always over the insane continuity stretching behind them, or some of the archaic stylistic elements.

I feel that, in the majority of these reboots, that core concept has been retained and perhaps refined a bit. Some details are changed to avoid a super-strict retelling, and some characters are recycled for familiarity reasons, but the character is preserved. This movie is no exception: this felt more like a Spider-Man movie to me than any of the Sam Raimi projects (which, don't get me wrong, I still enjoyed).

While I agree with some of this, I do have one thing to point out. It's very understandable that a reboot needs to speak to a new (and usually younger and potentially larger) fanbase; the problem I have is...

Why can't a production team just take their screenplay and make it a new IP? Why take the "new direction" and attach it to a previously played out setting and characters?

I get that they want the kind of day one sales that you would have with an "established audience," but why go out of your way to do that when all you do will be inevitably piss off the fanboys (plus in this instance, Bob's right, it was done for the bookkeepers just to keep the contract away from Marvel.) Fandom of comic book movies are going to turn out for a "comic book movie" even if it isn't one of their established heroes. It may take longer, they may have to rely more on video and international, but the audience will see it. And they may end up with the new audience AND the fanboys flocking to a new and interesting IP.

Yes there's more risk in a new IP, but I think entertainment is closing in on an "event horizon" with all the reboots, sequels, prequels, remakes, adaptations, and just flat-out ripoffs that are being cranked out. I believe that very soon a breakout new IP is going to SHATTER everything in it's path in Hollywood, as the audience flocks to something new, fresh, and more interesting than the same played-out stories over and over.

And then of course, they will green light a sequel (curse you vicious cycle...)

But back to Spidey. Sure, I'll provoke the outcry. Ahem... "Bob is dead on, this is totally an attempt to capture the Twihards, Gleeks, and post-HSM fanteens in an attempt for Sony to delay the handover to Marvel for the longest amount of time possible."

It's a smart business move on their part, and I can't blame them for it. I'll just caution the "new" Spidey fans this... 5 to 7 years from now when Sony does it all over again, trying to reach the new "younger" fans by appealing to whatever the future angsty teen crap is; don't say you didn't see it coming.

Instead, do like I did. Whine and complain about how you may have liked it if it were a new IP. This (mostly) same story on a new hero? I may have enjoyed it. Instead, like Bob, all I see is where this movie attempted to (and rightly so) distance itself from its predecessor. And saw that at no time did it not make itself worse by doing what it had to do. In 0 instances did they ever do something that Raimi did right... better. It was always worse. In the rare cases where Raimi did something wrong (mostly from 3) well... do you want a medal for picking the low hanging fruit?

alright, everyone. you heard the man; pirate this if you want to see it.

Thanks for saving me $15 Bob!

Well, I see Bob has gone full-on Raimi-fanboy nerdrage, which is pretty much what I expected out of him for this one. Which is a shame, since I wouldn't have minded seeing an actual objective review.

At least Spiderman: Arkham City isn't bad.

All I have to say about Bob's review of this movie is...

Damn!

I've seen people get upset about their dog being run over and not be that pissed.

OK, so the movie SUCKS. There is absolutely nothing good about it.

My bias-sense is tingling.
There is way too much movie politics involved to expect this review to be impartial..

Fusioncode9:
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!

I actually love you for this post.

It always gets to me when I see people basically posting "Oh Bob you're so right! Not that I've seen the movie or anything like that but it's you so of course you're right!"

Bob, to spite this piece of shit, I'm going to go watch Spiderman. Yeah, the good one with Toby.

Five bucks this gets a sequel and screws up JJJ.

I don't get all the "I wanted an impartial/objective/unbiased review" comments. From my perspective, all reviews are simply the opinions of the author overall. Sure you can have facts in there, but it is still opinion. Isn't it usually called the movie "experience". In that we can all experience it differently. That is why some people love say The Dark Knight and think it is one of the best summer blockbusters of all time while others think it is highly overrated.

There is a reason why I watch reviews, and more importantly why I really only pay attention to a few of them. Its because I want the opinions of someone who has already seen the film. Most of the time, when Bob says a movie is good, I agree. Percentage is lower, when he lets loose his vitriol, but I still usually agree.

Anyway, I was afraid this was going to be a bad movie, but after watching the review I am certainly not going to watch it in Theaters. Maybe I will watch it when it comes to my local library.

Bummer. I was kinda hoping this would at least be decent.

Sis:
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.

I don't think Bob is resentful enough to not love a comic book movie as good as The Dark Knight, or, since we're on topic, something like Spider Man 2. He'd have ranted about how all the production issues will harangue the box office results, which would be sad, or some similar nonsense. I'm not arguing against that grain of salt this time, however, since he will be particularly bitter about comic book movies done badly, but I'm pretty sure he would look past his earlier misgivings if it had turned out to be amazing. Granted, when they fail, he goes hunting for the biggest and rustiest of nails and the roughest, most splintery wood for the impending crucifixion, but if you consider how awful something like either the Expendables or Green Lantern were, and how much ire he through their way, I'm inclined to follow his opinion of things that suck more easily than things that are fantastic.

Eh. Sounds like it would just maintain my status-quo: All Spiderman Movies suck.
(In my opinion, if you couldn't deduce that)

I stopped giving them a chance after Spiderman 2, in which Doc pulled a shiny golden polyhedron of "Tritium" out of the wall safe (first and only time I ever audibly yelled BULLSHIT at the screen in a movie theater).

The trailers showed some very good lines and gave me a bit of hope for this movie (something I could not say about Gangrene Lantern), but I see that we've gone back to showing the only entertaining scenes in the movie first; and nothing else.

Welp. Here's to hoping Nolan's Batman 3 doesn't suck.

Hey guys, you might want to see it for yourself to know whether or not it really sucks. I personally loved it and I think it's my favorite Spider-Man movie. It's way less cheesy than the Raimi films while still fun, yet capturing the essence of Peter Parker far better than those films. The worst complaints I've seen are that Andrew Garfield is too cool or attractive (This may be the shallowest complaint I've ever heard), the film is too much of a retread (It does things differently enough and focuses more on character than the previous films, Uncle Ben feels like more than a plot device), the Lizard is too much like a B-movie villain (I'll give them this one, but I felt like his B-movieness was fun), and that it's just a cash grab.

All movies are cash grabs, Webb clearly put his mark on this film and I'm not seeing this made by commitee BS that I'm seeing on the internet. Is it because they had to do another one to keep the license? So what? That shouldn't be held against the movie, the film should be judged on it's own merits. Anyway, I found this version of to be a much more modern take on the Spider-Man mythos than the original films. Especially with Peter, the kind of nerd we see him as in the Raimi films is a Hollywood fabrication, the angsty, neurotic, awkward guy who can still joke around is the type of nerd I was in High School and I'm glad to see that represented instead of a Big Bang Theory-style caricature.

That said, I DO enjoy the Raimi films, I just don't think they're the perfect Spider-Man movies, this isn't either, but I think it's closer. I'm pretty much only posting because both sides of this argument need to actually watch the movie before coming to these conclusions about it. If you think it looks terrible the only way to confirm it is to see it, not by watching/reading one person's review, same goes for the people that think it looks good without having seen it and are attacking reviewers for giving it a bad review.

Anyway, I thought it was good, some critics think it's good, some think it's bad, see the movie before you make up your mind about it.

Carnage95:
I've been a Spider-Man fan since I was three or five years old and I absolutely adore him. I saw the film twice and I love every minute of it! Sure there were a one or two things that they didn't include that made me a tad disappointed, but overall this film is THE Spider-Man film I have been waiting for. Andrew Garfield totally nails it as Peter Parker and he looks like him too. The film also tugged on my heartstrings where as the previous trilogy didn't do anything for me.

The previous trilogy was a total cheese-fest, the main cast's acting was mediocre and I've always cringed at the dialogue between Peter and Mary Jane. The only actors that I felt that stood out were Bruce Campbell and J.K Simmons. Other than the costume design, Tobey's Spider-Man didn't act like Spider-Man. Hardly any wisecracking and taunting of his enemies.

Go watch this film if you love Spider-Man because this is the one I was waiting for and they delivered.

Also to those who aren't going to watch this film because they want it back with Marvel Studios, go watch the film seriously. If you didn't know, Sony and Marvel might make a deal to have Spider-Man join the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There was a rumour that the OSCORP building was going to be in The Avengers, however they took it out because of the timing of the films. There were interviews conducted that have asked if Spider-Man could join the MCU and they said if Spider-Man does well, they might work something out.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/eyegloo/news/?a=62896

Edit: Fixed the link issue.

All of this, especially the part about tugging heartstrings, this movie hit me a lot harder than the Raimi trilogy and it pisses me off a little to see people call it "soulless". I literally teared up at a couple of parts.

To say I saw that coming a mile away would be an understatement...

After Spiderman 3, I don't have much faith in future Spidey movies...unless Marvel gets the rights back, which will never happen unfortunately...

*Crosses fingers for this movie to bomb hard*

MANIFESTER:
I don't get all the "I wanted an impartial/objective/unbiased review" comments. From my perspective, all reviews are simply the opinions of the author overall. Sure you can have facts in there, but it is still opinion. Isn't it usually called the movie "experience". In that we can all experience it differently. That is why some people love say The Dark Knight and think it is one of the best summer blockbusters of all time while others think it is highly overrated.

There's a difference between the objective opinion of the author of a review, and a situation where the reviewer went into a film hating it right off the bat and refusing to give it even the slightest shred of objective consideration.

This is clearly a case of the latter.

i got a feeling movie bob is filled with fan boyish rage by the way he talked.
and it did not sounded like a professional review. it seemed more like a rant like review

i have not seen it and i don't plan on seeing it to began with due to being indifferent towards spiderman in general
so i will never know how bad or good this film is i am just making an observation on how movie bob sounded like

personalty if i had interest in watching this film i would ignore this review. due to it feeling unprofessional
from what hear on this thread movie bob hated the idea of this movie when it was first announced

edit:
also he was talking almost as fast as yahtzee at times

You know, a lot of these posts would be less pathetic if people had bothered to see the movie before taking someone elses opinion.

I criticize the hell out of the Batman movies, but at least I go see them for myself rather than be a drone to opinions of others.

The moment I heard about this reboot, I have had a bad feeling and everything I have seen or heard afterwards has just added to it. Whatever leftover desire I had to see this in the theatre has just been thrown out the window with your review. Oh I'll still watch it, but just like Green Lantern, it will be a rental.

Can some1 spoil me that scene that he mentions where they "tried" to do the "infamous train scene of Spiderman 2" for us to give a shit about?

NaramSuen:
The moment I heard about this reboot, I have had a bad feeling and everything I have seen or heard afterwards has just added to it. Whatever leftover desire I had to see this in the theatre has just been thrown out the window with your review. Oh I'll still watch it, but just like Green Lantern, it will be a rental.

I really recommend it. It's a great film. I loved it more than any of other other 3 films. Heck, my whole family loved it, and my mom doesn't even care for Spider-Man

chaosyoshimage:

Carnage95:
I've been a Spider-Man fan since I was three or five years old and I absolutely adore him. I saw the film twice and I love every minute of it! Sure there were a one or two things that they didn't include that made me a tad disappointed, but overall this film is THE Spider-Man film I have been waiting for. Andrew Garfield totally nails it as Peter Parker and he looks like him too. The film also tugged on my heartstrings where as the previous trilogy didn't do anything for me.

The previous trilogy was a total cheese-fest, the main cast's acting was mediocre and I've always cringed at the dialogue between Peter and Mary Jane. The only actors that I felt that stood out were Bruce Campbell and J.K Simmons. Other than the costume design, Tobey's Spider-Man didn't act like Spider-Man. Hardly any wisecracking and taunting of his enemies.

Go watch this film if you love Spider-Man because this is the one I was waiting for and they delivered.

Also to those who aren't going to watch this film because they want it back with Marvel Studios, go watch the film seriously. If you didn't know, Sony and Marvel might make a deal to have Spider-Man join the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There was a rumour that the OSCORP building was going to be in The Avengers, however they took it out because of the timing of the films. There were interviews conducted that have asked if Spider-Man could join the MCU and they said if Spider-Man does well, they might work something out.

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/MarvelMovieverseNews/news/?a=61371
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/eyegloo/news/?a=62896

Edit: Fixed the link issue.

All of this, especially the part about tugging heartstrings, this movie hit me a lot harder than the Raimi trilogy and it pisses me off a little to see people call it "soulless". I literally teared up at a couple of parts.

I completely agree with all of the above; I especially want to point out the "tugging heartstrings" that was mentioned. This movie made me realize that I never gave a shit about the characters in the Raimi films. In the Raimi films the characters were all just blandly written. And while the actors in that trilogy were good (well in Spiderman 2) the characters that they portrayed were stuck in their 1960 comic book stereotypes. This new movie has both great actors and interesting characters, and I actually found myself upset at a few parts due to the conflicts both physically and mentally surrounding them. And I do like the Raimi trilogy don't get me wrong, but this movie simply just blew them out of the water.

This movie has its issues, but no where near to the rampant degree expressed in the review. This new modernized movie fixes a lot of problems of the old and brings the trilogy into the 21st century for real this time. It is for this same reason that they rebooted the comics in the late 90s and Ultimate Spiderman was born.

And I hear a lot about stuff that was left out especially noted is JJJ, but you know there is going to be a sequel right?

And the point of the movie ripping off the Batman movies....so what? The Nolan movies have helped pushed comic films into a era of realism; what is wrong with embracing it?

At the end of the day though judge for yourself; just don't take Bob so seriously sometimes.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . . 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
Registered for a free account here