Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 15 NEXT
 

I had a feeling this was going to suck. I wasn't planning on watching this to begin with for pretty much all the reasons that Mr. Bob pointed out in this review.

Y'know...cancelling Spectacular Spider-Man and putting the kibosh on Raimi's run on the films?
That sucks but I'll live.

Replacing them with Ultimate and Amazing Spider-Man respectively and expecting me to smile and ask for more shows a level of contempt for your audience that I only thought possible long long ago in a galaxy far far away.

kyosai7:

Lieju:
I didn't hate it as much as you did. Still, you had good points.

However, I'd argue that the only big coincidence is that Gwen works for Connors.

All the other stuff fits well together; Peter's parents were involved with the research, that leads to Peter getting his powers, the same stuff leads to Connors becoming the Lizard. And Osborn is behind it all. It would be a far bigger coincidence if that all happened independently.

I agree with how they handled Connors/Lizard, he is my favourite Spidey-villain, and the movie did seem to hint he'd be more like himself in the (possible) sequels...

BTW, I think this movie was heavily influenced by the Ultimate Spider-Man comics...

And I couldn't tell if the CGI on Lizard was bad or not, because the 3D makes everything look fake. I hate 3D.

I missed the credits scene, but at the end, he seemed to be remoseful for his actions. In the sequel, I'd love to see him show up, boost himself with a "Refined" formula (hopefully one that gives him a better form, preferably with a more lizard-like face) and help out Spidey. " I did some horrible things. It's time I started to repent!" *inject, then charge forward Hulk in Avengers style, punching villain/OP mook in the face*

I don't think that's the best use of Lizard/Connors.
The way Connors/Lizard should be is with the Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Have Connors repent and be an ally to Peter, and fight against Lizard, who has his own goals.
The point of Lizard as a villain is that Connors isn't really responsible for what the Lizard does, and often Spidey had the problem that he was afraid to hurt the Lizard because he didn't want to harm Connors.

I'm not sure if was just a rumor, but I heard that had there been Spider-Man 4, the villains would have been Lizard and Kraven. That would have been brilliant. Have Kraven hunt The Lizard, forcing Spidey to save him, while also fighting him.

Lieju:

kyosai7:

Lieju:
I didn't hate it as much as you did. Still, you had good points.

However, I'd argue that the only big coincidence is that Gwen works for Connors.

All the other stuff fits well together; Peter's parents were involved with the research, that leads to Peter getting his powers, the same stuff leads to Connors becoming the Lizard. And Osborn is behind it all. It would be a far bigger coincidence if that all happened independently.

I agree with how they handled Connors/Lizard, he is my favourite Spidey-villain, and the movie did seem to hint he'd be more like himself in the (possible) sequels...

BTW, I think this movie was heavily influenced by the Ultimate Spider-Man comics...

And I couldn't tell if the CGI on Lizard was bad or not, because the 3D makes everything look fake. I hate 3D.

I missed the credits scene, but at the end, he seemed to be remoseful for his actions. In the sequel, I'd love to see him show up, boost himself with a "Refined" formula (hopefully one that gives him a better form, preferably with a more lizard-like face) and help out Spidey. " I did some horrible things. It's time I started to repent!" *inject, then charge forward Hulk in Avengers style, punching villain/OP mook in the face*

I don't think that's the best use of Lizard/Connors.
The way Connors/Lizard should be is with the Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Have Connors repent and be an ally to Peter, and fight against Lizard, who has his own goals.
The point of Lizard as a villain is that Connors isn't really responsible for what the Lizard does, and often Spidey had the problem that he was afraid to hurt the Lizard because he didn't want to harm Connors.

I'm not sure if was just a rumor, but I heard that had there been Spider-Man 4, the villains would have been Lizard and Kraven. That would have been brilliant. Have Kraven hunt The Lizard, forcing Spidey to save him, while also fighting him.

I was actually thinking of a couple of the special team ups Lizard and Spidey had in the Animated Series.

This was not a review.

If you watched this review with no knowledge of the new spider man, this review would tell you nothing!

This was repeating the words "This is shit" over and over again. All I got from his entire "review" was that he didn't like it. You could almost see the froth coming from his mouth.

He never explained what about it was bad. At least nothing in depth. No examples of where it went wrong. He never went into the plot of the movie, never described Parker's character or anything about how it resembled/didn't resemble the comics.

I expect something of a review from movie bob. I've watched his reviews for a while now and his big picture videos. he talks about why things don't work. What was done right and wrong. Hell, his Green Latern review was better than this one and he hated that one too.

This "review" was a waste of time on my part and any effort, if any, on his. He should be ashamed of it.

kyosai7:

Lieju:

kyosai7:

I missed the credits scene, but at the end, he seemed to be remoseful for his actions. In the sequel, I'd love to see him show up, boost himself with a "Refined" formula (hopefully one that gives him a better form, preferably with a more lizard-like face) and help out Spidey. " I did some horrible things. It's time I started to repent!" *inject, then charge forward Hulk in Avengers style, punching villain/OP mook in the face*

I don't think that's the best use of Lizard/Connors.
The way Connors/Lizard should be is with the Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Have Connors repent and be an ally to Peter, and fight against Lizard, who has his own goals.
The point of Lizard as a villain is that Connors isn't really responsible for what the Lizard does, and often Spidey had the problem that he was afraid to hurt the Lizard because he didn't want to harm Connors.

I'm not sure if was just a rumor, but I heard that had there been Spider-Man 4, the villains would have been Lizard and Kraven. That would have been brilliant. Have Kraven hunt The Lizard, forcing Spidey to save him, while also fighting him.

I was actually thinking of a couple of the special team ups Lizard and Spidey had in the Animated Series.

If I recall correctly, at least once some telepath awakened Connors mind when he was being Lizard...

At any rate, something like that should only happen after it's established what kind of relationship they normally have. We need to see that Lizard and Connors are two different people. In this movie, that wasn't apparent. However, the ending and the end-credits scene seem to hint at that kind of a thing.

So I actually wish they'll make a sequel.

My biggest problem with the design of Lizard was how he was naked. Really, now? Without his labcoat he looks just like a generic lizard-monster.

Hey, that kid's dad was in Red Dawn.

Anybody whant to spoil the STUPID thing they did with the swinging lines?

Don't forget the [spoiler] tags

Lieju:

kyosai7:

Lieju:

I don't think that's the best use of Lizard/Connors.
The way Connors/Lizard should be is with the Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Have Connors repent and be an ally to Peter, and fight against Lizard, who has his own goals.
The point of Lizard as a villain is that Connors isn't really responsible for what the Lizard does, and often Spidey had the problem that he was afraid to hurt the Lizard because he didn't want to harm Connors.

I'm not sure if was just a rumor, but I heard that had there been Spider-Man 4, the villains would have been Lizard and Kraven. That would have been brilliant. Have Kraven hunt The Lizard, forcing Spidey to save him, while also fighting him.

I was actually thinking of a couple of the special team ups Lizard and Spidey had in the Animated Series.

If I recall correctly, at least once some telepath awakened Connors mind when he was being Lizard...

At any rate, something like that should only happen after it's established what kind of relationship they normally have. We need to see that Lizard and Connors are two different people. In this movie, that wasn't apparent. However, the ending and the end-credits scene seem to hint at that kind of a thing.

So I actually wish they'll make a sequel.

My biggest problem with the design of Lizard was how he was naked. Really, now? Without his labcoat he looks just like a generic lizard-monster.

I liked seeing him wear it when he did, though! My main issue with him was the face. It should have been more lizard like, with the protruding mouth and nose.

I had actually seen a few headlines in papers saying that this movie was horrible, but I generally wait to hear from MovieBob if it's one I care to hear from a critic on. And I'm glad I did. Everything he pointed out are things that would have pissed me off had I dropped cash to see it. I had high hopes, too. I'd only seen a trailer or two but what I saw was enough to get me excited. Spider-Man being a wise-ass to punks, you've got me interested. Just don't screw up the rest.

I agree with Bob, I hope this bombs so hard and loses Fox so much money that they finally give Spidey back to the people that WANT to make a Spider-Man movie. A SPIDER-MAN movie, not a 'Bland superhero who happens to be called Spider-Man' movie.

While the film itself was pretty average, but I think Bob overdid it with the whole angry, vitriolic ranting business. It's pretty clear he was going to hate it based on principle alone, but surely it wasn't bad enough to warrant that level of panning. Hell, it was superior in pretty much every way to Spiderman 3, though that isn't saying much.

Personally, I don't give a shit about the whole corporate boardroom origins of this movie and just thought it was a fun teen rom-com with a bit of webslinging action on the side. In my opinion, every teen rom-com could be improved by including 20 minutes of webslinging action.

i really want to know what the "stupidest thing to ever happen in a spiderman movie" is!

MrBrightside919:
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*

Sorry to dash your dreams( and mine) this movie is no. 1 right now in other countries including here in the Philippines.

Lokyar:

I agree with Bob, I hope this bombs so hard and loses Fox so much money that they finally give Spidey back to the people that WANT to make a Spider-Man movie. A SPIDER-MAN movie, not a 'Bland superhero who happens to be called Spider-Man' movie.

It's Sony who holds the rights to Spiderman not Fox. Its the X-Men franchise that Fox holds.

Glad to see everybody is taking MovieBob's review with a grain of salt. /sarcasm

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.

Glad someone shares my thought process. This was the first negative review I've seen from it. everybody else said it was better than the original.

@Antonio Torrente: Ah, my bad. I think a few posts said fox(such as this one) and my brain remembered that instead of the actual company.

McMindflayer:
This was not a review.

If you watched this review with no knowledge of the new spider man, this review would tell you nothing!

This was repeating the words "This is shit" over and over again. All I got from his entire "review" was that he didn't like it. You could almost see the froth coming from his mouth.

He never explained what about it was bad. At least nothing in depth. No examples of where it went wrong. He never went into the plot of the movie, never described Parker's character or anything about how it resembled/didn't resemble the comics.

I expect something of a review from movie bob. I've watched his reviews for a while now and his big picture videos. he talks about why things don't work. What was done right and wrong. Hell, his Green Latern review was better than this one and he hated that one too.

This "review" was a waste of time on my part and any effort, if any, on his. He should be ashamed of it.

He actually did exactly that.
The Lizard creature was poorly designed and the CG looks outdated, like in the remake of The Thing.
Parkers' birthparents were never particularly important, save for one story arc the 90s cartoon, and the Ultimate comics, but they shifted focus away from May and Ben to them int he movie because. Well, because.
Parker's character was all over the place, he's too unfocused and cannot be described in detail because there is no detail. You're asking Bob to do a better job of describing a thinly spread peanut butter sandwitch.
Gwen Stacy wasn't 'Gwen Stacy', she was a lab assistant named Gwen Stacy who, again, didn't have the decency to die like a good Gwen Stacy should. This is the Aeris Gainsbourogh of the Spidey series and she's survived two unassoicated movies. That's wrong. They could have at least made her a literal corperate whore like in Antitrust, but that'd make her interesting. God forbid.
Also, poor action sequences.

Siege_TF:

Gwen Stacy wasn't 'Gwen Stacy', she was a lab assistant named Gwen Stacy who, again, didn't have the decency to die like a good Gwen Stacy should. This is the Aeris Gainsbourogh of the Spidey series and she's survived two unassoicated movies. That's wrong. They could have at least made her a literal corperate whore like in Antitrust, but that'd make her interesting. God forbid.

To be honest, there's a lot in that post I could pick apart, but I would like to address just one particular thing:

THIS IS THE FIRST MOVIE WITH SEQUELS ALREADY PLANNED!

Asking them to kill Gwen this early would be completely pointless. And no, the fact that she survived SM3 has no relevancy here because this is an entirely different continuity with its own character arcs to deal with. Save her death for a story arc where it will actually have impact. Remember Rachael in The Dark Knight?

I'm just going to say check out The Cinema Snob's review on Blip as a sort of counterpoint.
It has spoilers if you keep watching it long enough, but IMO they did a great job pointing out why this movie works & is worth watching.

I'm not going to deny Raimi's movies are better 'cinema' overall, but honestly I never really enjoyed them, outside of a technical level.

Well I did enjoy the second movie, but that was ENTIRELY due to Doc Ock & his scenes, they could have edited Spider-Man out for all I cared.

Just saw it, thought it was pretty kick-ass. Like, Spider-man 2 level of kick-ass.

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.

You're working under the assumption that being a skater/slacker automatically makes you dumb. It's possible to be smart, but not bother with school work because that particular brand of work annoys you. Let me put it this way: I'm sure you've had a class that is a complete breeze but wasn't really your thing; did you honestly want to do the work for that class? And skating is a recreational activity that in no way affects your ability to be smart.

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.

I'm just gonna say it - the people commenting here are all-purpose nerds who set out explicitly to hate it since the reboot was announced. If you read through the comments you'll see that people are just using the review to justify hating it, and have only seen the trailers. But most of the people in these comments who've actually watched it are disagreeing with the review. I wager that the people in the FB comments have actually watched it, and that's why they're disagreeing.

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.

Have you READ a comic since 1970? Peter wasn't a perennial geek, he was a kid with an interest in science (who is also really smart and studies for it) who before he gained his powers was incredibly shy and reclusive but once he got them became a lot bolder, he started asking girls out (unless you count dating the two hottest girls in school as a geek activity), he did not have these imaginary self-esteem issues your thinking of. He had GUILT issues over his own inactions and even recently had the problem of declaring "No-one dies when I'm around" before finding that it was borderline impossible to keep to that. He was appealing at the time because he was a teenager who was the main superhero, not the side-kick. If his main focus was as a geek, he wouldn't have worked for the Bugle for so long making chump change, he would've applied for Horizon and other labs much earlier on (even at Horizon, he isn't the geekiest, Grady is nth times as nerdy as him!)

This is, of course, just the mainstream coninuity not even getting into Ultimate Spiderman where he acts... well, a good deal like Amazing Spiderman's interpretation, a lot snarkier. You can be annoyed it doesn't fit your own view of Spiderman (my views on how accurate that is aside) but it's hardly completely off base by not making him the quiet awkward kid a la Tobey Maguire.

Oh great, and I have a friend who's begging me to go see it with him IN 3D because he really really wants to see it for his birthday. I have no problem in buying him a ticket, but he also wants ME to go with him because ''movies aren't meant to be seen alone in cinemas''.

Maybe if I link him to Bob's video he'll change his mind.

And then Mila Kunis will maybe break into my home and demand hot, steamy, rough sex.

I dread to watch this review.
The again, I'm the kinda guy who will avidly defend Green Lantern the movie, so I might be more likely to like it....

Siege_TF:

McMindflayer:
This was not a review.

If you watched this review with no knowledge of the new spider man, this review would tell you nothing!

This was repeating the words "This is shit" over and over again. All I got from his entire "review" was that he didn't like it. You could almost see the froth coming from his mouth.

He never explained what about it was bad. At least nothing in depth. No examples of where it went wrong. He never went into the plot of the movie, never described Parker's character or anything about how it resembled/didn't resemble the comics.

I expect something of a review from movie bob. I've watched his reviews for a while now and his big picture videos. he talks about why things don't work. What was done right and wrong. Hell, his Green Latern review was better than this one and he hated that one too.

This "review" was a waste of time on my part and any effort, if any, on his. He should be ashamed of it.

He actually did exactly that.
The Lizard creature was poorly designed and the CG looks outdated, like in the remake of The Thing.
Parkers' birthparents were never particularly important, save for one story arc the 90s cartoon, and the Ultimate comics, but they shifted focus away from May and Ben to them int he movie because. Well, because.
Parker's character was all over the place, he's too unfocused and cannot be described in detail because there is no detail. You're asking Bob to do a better job of describing a thinly spread peanut butter sandwitch.
Gwen Stacy wasn't 'Gwen Stacy', she was a lab assistant named Gwen Stacy who, again, didn't have the decency to die like a good Gwen Stacy should. This is the Aeris Gainsbourogh of the Spidey series and she's survived two unassoicated movies. That's wrong. They could have at least made her a literal corperate whore like in Antitrust, but that'd make her interesting. God forbid.
Also, poor action sequences.

But that's the thing. he would have gone over these points in depth. He Should have. Hell, you just reviewed Parker's character better than Movie Bob did.

He should have gone over what he felt parker should be, instead of what he is. He should have gone over the plot or what he felt was the bad writing.

But instead we get him pretty much just fast rambling about the movie. It's like he had a bullet point paper and read them off in his most rage Induced state.

His coincidence nitpick is something that happen in EVERY movie. People who coincidentally know each other or coincidentally meet up. Hell Spiderman 3 Had it with Venom leaving spiderman. They went to the same empty church?

I enjoy Movie Bob reviews, I want him to keep doing reviews and not whatever this video was.

So this thread has been fun. Do people not understand reviews? Guys, a review is, by necessity, an opinion. The amount of people saying Bob is "wrong", or that Ebert gave it 3.5/4 or that it has 74% on Rotten Tomatoes are kind of missing the point. That's irrelevant. I wasn't going to bother quoting anyone, since half the posts have the same problem, but this sums it up pretty well.

TheFederation:

I haven't seen the movie, I was going from Bob's opinion, which is turning out to be false. it seems that everybody else who saw the movie says that it's good, while everyone who says it's bad hasn't actually seen it (including myself)

WHAT!? Now, disagreeing is fine. I watch Bob's reviews because I find him entertaining and, more importantly, I find I and him share sensibilities. If he enjoyed a movie, I likely will too. I don't ignore the other information out there, I might check Rotten Tomatoes or IMDB, but generally speaking if Bob says it's good I'll probably go see it and have fun as well. If you disagree with him, go right ahead and mention that. But stop attacking the guy. A couple of things.

Stop pointing at Rotten Tomatoes as a reason Bob's review is wrong. As I said above, that's irrelevant, it doesn't make Bob any less right or wrong, it just means he's in the minority with his opinion. Also, 71% isn't very good. Most review scales tend to slide forwards, gamers should certainly be familiar with that old chestnut, making 70% an average at best score. Certainly not a movie I'd go see in the cinema if I was deciding based on that. Hell, if you want to go by Rotten Tomatoes the first two Raimi films are demonstrably better, getting an 89% and a 93% (with Spiderman 3 getting 63% if you're curious). By all means point out that the movie isn't being universally panned, but stop using it as "evidence" that Bob's review doesn't count.

Please stop with the "you were bias" argument, I've never understood it. The obvious point is that, of course he was biased, that's what a review is. However, there's also this idea that expecting a movie to be bad means your review is worthless. Bob was very excited for Avengers. I think we can all agree he went in expecting, or at least hoping for, it to be good. When it was, and his review said as much, did anyone say his review doesn't count because he had a preconceived opinion? I mean, a few people probably did, but I'm sure it was far less prevalent. The point of advertising is to get an audience to form an opinion. The hoped for outcome is the viewer is interested, but there will of course be others where the opposite is true. Expecting a movie to be bad from the outset, and then the movie turning out to indeed be bad, does not mean your opinion is invalid.

On a related note, a few people are saying Bob hates it because he wants Spiderman back in the hands of Marvel. Bob pointed out in the review itself that X-Men were in much the same boat, and he called First Class one of the greatest superhero films of all time. If memory serves he said it was as good as Dark Knight. Sure First Class might have had better advertising behind it, at least in the view of Bob, but apart from that it was in the same situation as Amazing Spiderman.

So, I think that covers most of the arguments that had me face-palming. As for my personal opinion. Not a movie I plan on seeing at the cinema, certainly. As I said above, if Bob didn't enjoy it I likely won't either (although I suspect I won't hate it quite as much), and besides, it's getting decidedly average reception, and I only go to the cinema for a movie I'm damned sure I'll enjoy. So, I don't really have an opinion, beyond that I thought it would be bad from the start, and I've heard nothing to make me think otherwise. Maybe some day I'll watch it with some friends and we'll have a good laugh.

EDIT: So wow, that turned out much longer than I thought... And I'm adding a bit more, but it's ok, I'm just quoting this dude.

maninahat:

Yes, for all I know I might enjoy Spiderman. I could hate it too. That is why I trust critics who's opinions and body of work I am familiar with, instead of a percentage of faceless reviewers I know nothing about. I pick familiar reviewers because I can then contrast them with my own opinions. I don't usually agree with Bob's opinions, but I know where to place them. That is more than can be said for a vague concensus of strangers I can't trust. Jim, please help me out here.

I agree with this entirely, except that, as mentioned above, I find I usually agree with Bob. Thankyou for that maninahat. Especially the Jimquisition video, I haven't got around to watching Jim's videos from the pre-Escapist days yet, but occasionally I see one linked that I just love. Like the one he made about devs saying "you're playing the game wrong" and such. But I'm going off topic now.

Saw it on monday. Pretty mediocre I thought. I thought the hour long origin was unnecessary, everyone knows Spidey's origins already because it's been done better already. They tried changing a few things ultimately making it worse. The jokes with Spidey underestimating his own strength got really repetitive and actually got in the way of the plot. He does things as Peter Parker that literally no human could do and no one seems to care.

The fact that they didn't say "With great power comes great responsibility" would suck but be forgiveable if they didn't do some bullshit paraphrase of it that's in no way quotable. It's like they were just slapping a neon sign on it saying "NOT THOSE MOVIES". Which is the same problem with the origin. They changed so much, not because it was a good idea but just because. The writing is schizophrenic, one second he's trying to track down the guy that killed his uncle and he's doing it like a guy who's tracking down his uncle's killer would. Next thing you know he's got a possible suspect cornered and he's cracking jokes and making witty banter which would be fine usually but not with the whole uncle's killer thing. He just seems to forget about Ben until the very end. A major part of Spidey's back story and motivation is his guilt over Ben's death because of his inaction (which they also fucked) which is why he lives by "With great power comes great responsibility".

Lizard is boring. He has none of the duality of the original character. Instead just becoming a lazy villain even when he's not in Lizard form. Ebert was right, he's about as complex a villain as Godzilla.

Andrew Garfield was just annoying to me. He tried so hard to be brooding but it just came down to not saying or doing much. Lost count of how many times I was left thinking "Just get on with it". His "brooding" ended up dragging scenes on for way longer than they should. And what was with the head shake/twitching?

First time I think I've heard you this mad/angry Bob
Look out you'll get a hearthattack...
Still going to see it, I've had different feelings than Bob before but did I understand correctly on this one point that Lizzard is "concious" when in Lizzard form? Because that will piss me off, Lizzard is supposed to happen randomly and turn him into a raging teen-godzilla!

Lieju:

kyosai7:

Lieju:
I didn't hate it as much as you did. Still, you had good points.

However, I'd argue that the only big coincidence is that Gwen works for Connors.

All the other stuff fits well together; Peter's parents were involved with the research, that leads to Peter getting his powers, the same stuff leads to Connors becoming the Lizard. And Osborn is behind it all. It would be a far bigger coincidence if that all happened independently.

I agree with how they handled Connors/Lizard, he is my favourite Spidey-villain, and the movie did seem to hint he'd be more like himself in the (possible) sequels...

BTW, I think this movie was heavily influenced by the Ultimate Spider-Man comics...

And I couldn't tell if the CGI on Lizard was bad or not, because the 3D makes everything look fake. I hate 3D.

I missed the credits scene, but at the end, he seemed to be remoseful for his actions. In the sequel, I'd love to see him show up, boost himself with a "Refined" formula (hopefully one that gives him a better form, preferably with a more lizard-like face) and help out Spidey. " I did some horrible things. It's time I started to repent!" *inject, then charge forward Hulk in Avengers style, punching villain/OP mook in the face*

I don't think that's the best use of Lizard/Connors.
The way Connors/Lizard should be is with the Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Have Connors repent and be an ally to Peter, and fight against Lizard, who has his own goals.
The point of Lizard as a villain is that Connors isn't really responsible for what the Lizard does, and often Spidey had the problem that he was afraid to hurt the Lizard because he didn't want to harm Connors.

I'm not sure if was just a rumor, but I heard that had there been Spider-Man 4, the villains would have been Lizard and Kraven. That would have been brilliant. Have Kraven hunt The Lizard, forcing Spidey to save him, while also fighting him.

It was also suppose to have Ann Hatheway as Black Cat who she was going to play in spider-man 2 but it was cut from the script (which is why the videogame has black cat because they were given an earlier version of the script to work with). Black Cat was suppose to try to get Peter to give up his life as Peter Parker and just be Spider-man all the time.

Wuvlycuddles:

The nerve of some people, eh? Following the advice of a professional critic, ITS MADNESS I TELL YE! MAAAAADNESS! MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!

Point taken. But there's a difference between "Huh, this reviewer/critic said such and such about this film. I'll be sure to take those points into consideration while I form my own opinion about the movie" and "THIS PERSON SAID IT SUCKS SO IT SUCKS! That's all I need to know, why bother watching it myself if someone else doesn't like it?"

Kind of agree that this was just a rant, not a review.
The guy defending it did an actual review, that's sad. Earlier when somebody pointed out that he didn't talk about why he hated it, somebody went and made a list of things they didn't like and that Bob just glossed over, and that short rant was better at describing this move than this entire video.

I also disagree with the notion that the movie is completely worthless shit, but that's just me. As much as I disliked Green Lantern, I think he had the same thing going on there. He made a list of "plot holes" that were not even plot holes.

Bob has a way of being more opinion than information. Sometimes it's entertaining, this time it's just the equivalent of listening to some random guy rage about a movie. As many have already pointed out, the "coincidences" are not that big and ridiculous compared to the ones that flooded all three Sam Rami adaptions.

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

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Kyrian007:
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?

Why not? Surely you have to understand why someone might be tempted to tie their ideas (and financial security) to a name and label that has been around for half a century?

This is a case of not wanting to let Spider-Man die. And without some kind of reboot, make no mistake, it will die. As continuity stretches on into the realm of the completely insane (see: soap operas), the buy-in for even the most basic level of fandom gets too high to draw new people. A reboot clears a lot of that out and allows a new generation to enjoy the character.

What I'm getting at here is that it's actually more than just a financial decision. Many people love the character more than the continuity, and they don't want to keep the latter at the expense of the former.

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...)

Agreed, totally. This has more to do with the current budget model of movies/games than anything.

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?

I'm a Sam Raimi fan. The guy does good work. That said, I enjoyed this movie more than the Raimi movies. Seriously, there's some rose-tinting going on here.

1. Complaints about the portrayal of the Lizard -- mostly how he looked, and how "science made him evil." These exact same complaints are true of the villains from the first two Raimi movies (that is, the "good ones").

2. Kirsten Dunst is just plain awful as MJ. She is hired for one facial expression -- the smug smirk. She brought no heart to the role, and had no excuse.

3. James Franco was no better. Maybe he was upset over not getting the title role, but his performance was mostly phoned-in... and his character arc was incredibly weak, to boot (not his fault).

4. In all three movies, the "big showdown" amounts to the exact same hostage situation. Spidey isn't trying to save the city; he's trying to save MJ. And the villains are basically just trying to "get Spider-Man," rather than trying to accomplish anything. (The exception is Doc Ock, but his project was hidden in an old secret building far from the eyes of the public.)

This movie finally introduced some Spider-Man-worthy peril, and it was the city that was in danger. Sure, Gwen was in danger, too, but she wasn't a hostage. No one was. The villain had a clear goal, and that's what he was after. His quarrel with Spider-Man was only that Spidey was interfering. And what's more? The city saw all of it. Citizens were fleeing, terrified. There was real danger, not just Spidey in a hostage crisis.

DoomyMcDoom:

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

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

Carpenter:

DoomyMcDoom:

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

And this is why I would be disinclined to see this movie, Jameson is my favourite character from any Spiderman series, comics cartoon or otherwise, without him, the world of spiderman may as well cease to exist.

Also, teen romance crap? Seriously? Pass.

Comics and all three movies dealt with his romantic life.

I'm not trying to be hostile or judgmental, but when you guys say stuff like that, it makes me wonder if you even read the comics or watched the movies or even watched the cartoon series.

I agree, Jameson is an important part of the universe, but you don't need to cram in every single character into the first movie.

Most of the "Romantic plot" in the spider man stuff I've been exposed to/read/watched, has been later life stuff, or Peter not having the balls to do anything about it, then abruptly having to save people, I don't remember it ever being really important outside of longing, and then a strange comic arc where he and MJ were married... Might just be my memory fading.

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Bob. I thought the movie was great and did a good job updating Spider-Man to feel much more modern and less cheesy than the Raimi movies.

Not really surprised that Bob thought this was awful. The trailers weren't looking TOO bad towards release, but it wasn't enough to get me to see it. Hopefully the lukewarm reviews will prompt Sony to give up the rights to this (unlikely, but I can dream!)

Watched the Sam Raimi Spider-Man last night, realised how good it was. The end sequence with Spidey going through New York is breath-taking, even 10 years on. No way was this new Spidey gonna live up to that.

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.

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?

C'mon guys, form you own opinions!

So me having already decided not to see this movie beforehand, and this review not changing that opinion means i'm not thinking for myself?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . . . 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