Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - The Movie That Broke MovieBob

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

IamLEAM1983:
Good God... I'm so sorry, Bob.

This is what happens when a studio holds onto an intellectual property not because it has some sort of vision for it, but because it sees it as a cash cow. We'll be stuck looking at a series of soulless sequels, just so Sony can squeeze every last cent they possibly can out of Peter Parker.

At this point, I'd almost *want* the rights to return to Marvel Studios and for that fanboyish setup to actually take place. Anything would be better than Sony Pictures going "Yeah, so we gotta keep the rights to Spidey because money... So yeah. Have a half-assed movie."

Or, shit - someone convince Sam Raimi to reboot those reboots. Anything, literally *anything* would be better than this.

You mean the same as Disney see there Marvel films? because look how quick the Hulk film trilogy was dropped once 'The Incredible Hulk' film flopped.

The Lovecraftian thing seems appropriate, I got a brief flashback of Maximilian Roivas at the line "it broke something in me."
"May the rats eat your eyes!!"
Take care, Bob, if Yahtzee can resist the voice of his Mad Ocelot God, I'm sure you can too.

Watched this yesterday, loved it.

awesome action, great snarky humor, passable romance (which is big praise coming from me, I hate romance in movies)

Andrew Garfield is a way better Spider Man than that emo twat from the last trilogy ever was.

Effects are top notch, especially when compared to the miserable efforts in the Raimi movies.

Electro was a great villain, Jamie Foxx is a great actor, I will admit the movie fell apart a bit after his defeat but up to that point it was awesome.

I don't have any investment in Spider Man anyway, I just went to watch a great popcorn flick, which is exactly what I got.

We shouldn't expect everything to be as great as the Dark Knight Trilogy or the MCU, not everything needs to be a masterpiece, some are just movies based on comics (talk about convoluted writing BTW...).

And yet it's still probably the best spiderman movie to have ever been made.

Honestly, these 2 films are nowhere near as bad as you're making them out to be. They might not be as good as if Marvel were doing them, but bad films. They are not.

I kind of agree with Bob on this. I like bits of this film, even Bob admitted that the Electro fight scenes are pretty cool, but that and everything else I liked just gets drowned out by the sad fact that Sony has no creative interest in Spider-Man other than as an easy way to build a long franchise that other companies have done better.

It is actually really unfortunate that Sony's going to stick with this franchise for countless years and make money off it whilst making Spider-Man films that sacrifice everything good about Spider-Man for the sake of, as Bob puts it, advertising for their future films.

I remember being annoyed at Bob for not liking the first Amazing Spider-Man but I really can't remember why. That film too had good bits but had the shadow of Sony's unfeeling money making hand hovering above it at all times.

I do disagree about Andrew Garfield though, I think he's an alright Spider-Man, I prefer his sarcastic loner version of Peter to Tobey Maguire's awkward moron version of Peter.

The Harkinator:
It wasn't a good film, there were some entertaining set pieces but I don't really like Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker (I'm still a Tobey Maguire fan) because he's just too 'cool' and with it. Peter in this seems to have none of the problems being Spider Man normally causes apart from being almost late to a couple of important things. But even then he shows up in the nick of time and manages to be cool and confident about everything as he swishes about with a stupid grin.

Garfield's only saving graces are his obvious chemistry with Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy and the clear signs that he's having the time of his life making this. That little jump for joy he does after helping Gwen was actually quite funny.

I'll give Dane DeHaan his dues, he did actually do a good job of convincing me Harry and Peter used to be best friends despite having no mention of Harry in the first ASM. Decent performance from him.

But other than that, Electro didn't actually do that much. Something that really annoyed me about him was how he got his name. He just picks it from nowhere with no reason behind it. At least Green Goblin and Doc Ock (Raimi films) got named in an interesting way. Rhino was barely in it either, and the Rhino suit looks remarkably stupid. More than that, there is the continuation of Peter being central to things he doesn't even understand and don't matter to the story. The stuff with his parents and Oscorp and everything else.

Boo on you film. Boo I say.

I actually much prefer Garfield's Peter Parker to Maguire's but then I really only got into Spiderman because of the 94-98 cartoon were Peter is never the outcast that 60's - 70's comic Peter is.

The most I remember from that was how popular Peter always was with the girls and they were more interested in him than the stock jock Flash.

And even then when I started buying the comics from about 95 - 2003 Peter was not the geeky loser that Bob seems to focus on as what he should be.

Ouch, that's bad. That's reaally bad. There should be some kind of award for crushing someone's soul. ...followed by a trip to the guillotine.

Wow it so bad that it broke you? Well I guess this means Man of Steel is still beter than Amazing Spider-man!

Wow and Ouch! Seriously that was just heart breaking. A guy who is a massive uber fan of Spider-man through the good times and bad just gave up.

See this is what I am scared of when it comes to the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past. I love X-Men. Movies, comics and the memorable and always loved cartoons. Yes X3 and Origins just went off course to the point of ending up on a ditch but I really hope and I mean REALLY REALLY hope Days of Future Past does not suck. Cause from the trailers and many characters, the movie should be split into two. I even read the comic events of Days of Future and I will accept and know that the movie will be different to the source material. I just don't want it to end up as a mess that will leave me sad with a bad taste in my mouth. Fox you have the floor now, show us what you can do and don't pull a Sony.

This was the pain I felt with Other M. Hope you feel better Bob.

Does this mean that we'll be seeing out-of-left-field potshots at this movie in Moviebob videos for the foreseeable future?

walsfeo:

IamLEAM1983:
Good God... I'm so sorry, Bob.

This is what happens when a studio holds onto an intellectual property not because it has some sort of vision for it, but because it sees it as a cash cow. We'll be stuck looking at a series of soulless sequels, just so Sony can squeeze every last cent they possibly can out of Peter Parker.

These movies are so bad they are doing actual brand damage. You'd think there would be a way to stop this tragedy, I don't like the "hey lets sue someone" mentality, but could threat of a lawsuit put enough pressure on Sony to make them rethink their bad behavior? Probably not.

Alternate solution: Could Marvel studios make the movie and have Sony distribute them or something?

Somebody needs a beating.

Sony as a company is pretty much in ruin these days. With the exception of the Playstation brand, which is strong as ever, pretty much every other division of Sony is in the red.

I know this is going to sound mean spirited, but I honestly wish their restructuring efforts failed so Disney could just swoop in and either buy back the movie rights to Spider-Man or just outright buy up Sony Pictures.

I don't even care about "Spidey needs to be an Avenger" or any of that stuff either. I'd just like them to let Spider-Man take a break from the cinema for a while. Like the post Batman & Robin Warner let Bats take a few years off to lick his wounds before coming back with Nolan and Bale and Begins.

Geez, over-reacting much? Yeh, this film is nowhere near as bad as Bob is making out to be, I'd say it's pretty good in fact. Yeh, I'm no big Spidey comic book fan, but really, screw those guys.

It's definitely not perfect though - especially as some of that cheesy "Yay! It's Spidey!" stuff that I feel didn't do the Raimi trilogy any favours has started to crop up in this film. Oh, and the Rhino was pretty laughable from what we saw of it - especially when it flipped open to reveal Giamatti inside - not very convincing.

So I'd say on this occasion, don't listen to old misery guts here and give the film a shot.

The Days of Future Past insert halfway through the credits was just as random as I thought it would be. The actually picture quality seemed rather low (though that may have been an issue at the cinema I was at and the footage seemed to be rather haphazardly edited. Smacked of a rush job, in other words.

I didn't really have a reason to see this before anyhow...still don't have a reason to see it. I feel bad for you Bob and I kind of feel bad for Spider-Man fans in general. It almost seemed like One More Day was the final straw for a lot of people but it looks like Sony is trying to out-do that story...

...

maybe that's Sony's end-game?

Casual Shinji:

King Whurdler:
DAYYYUMMMM! That's pretty brutal Bob. I maintain that the Sam Raimi directed films are objectively better than these new ones based solely on the fact, regardless of one's personal tastes, Raimi clearly made the movies he wanted to make.

Apart from the third one obviously.

OT: After the reboot getting the greenlight as quickly as it did, I knew I wanted to have nothing to do with these new movies. Good thing I never dove back in it seems. The fucking conspiracy plot would likely have sent me into a frenzy by itself.

Ehhhh... 4/10. Below average. I can't really call Spiderman 3 'good' with its confused script, bloated story, characters that seemingly forgot what their motivations were, et cetera, but there were some bright spots. I thought Thomas Haden Church did the absolute best he could with Sandman at the very least, and even if the film did ultimately fail, it at least elicited a response, unlike these new ones.

Regardless though, I don't put much of its failure on Raimi. In fact, I'm pretty sure he dislikes it just as much as we do

Well, at least that's settled whether or not to bother with this film. I'm not sure how they could manage to ever get something as good as Spiderman 2 was.

BTW, did Moviebob ever make a top ten superhero films video? Not the recent Marvel Cinematic Universe list, but all superhero films?

This movie was not horrible. It was mess in some places, poor pacing, story arcs that went nowhere and two actors in their late twenties as unconvincing teenagers, but it was not horrible. I especially enjoyed Electro. I thought Jamie Foxx did quite well in the role. The CGI, music and over-acting went well together.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is as shallow as shallow entertainment gets, it was a probably a waste of two hours of my life (but the same can be said for many many movies) but again, not horrible.

Next time on Escape to the Movies; Bob realizes Santa isn't real.

I think this sis what happens when you put to much Fanboy investment into something. Eventually you have to grow up and realize these things can disappoint you. You also seem to have the same attachment to Nintendo. I wonder what it will take to 'break that? As someone who has no investment in either of those things it is sometimes hard to understand Bob's opinions and blind spots in those matters. I don't really think the things he puts all of his emotional investment in are really of a quality for them to be worth it.

I kinda figured that this one was gonna be bad. I didn't like the first one because it didn't even have the balls to take risks like Spider-Man 3. Say what you want about Spider-Man 3, but at least I remember it while everything in TASM 1 has melded together into an incomprehensible blur.

Kumagawa Misogi:

IamLEAM1983:
Good God... I'm so sorry, Bob.

This is what happens when a studio holds onto an intellectual property not because it has some sort of vision for it, but because it sees it as a cash cow. We'll be stuck looking at a series of soulless sequels, just so Sony can squeeze every last cent they possibly can out of Peter Parker.

At this point, I'd almost *want* the rights to return to Marvel Studios and for that fanboyish setup to actually take place. Anything would be better than Sony Pictures going "Yeah, so we gotta keep the rights to Spidey because money... So yeah. Have a half-assed movie."

Or, shit - someone convince Sam Raimi to reboot those reboots. Anything, literally *anything* would be better than this.

You mean the same as Disney see there Marvel films? because look how quick the Hulk film trilogy was dropped once 'The Incredible Hulk' film flopped.

There's a difference between dropping something because it isn't financially viable to produce (keep in mind they're still expecting a massive profit) and making a film (or series of films) to retain character rights, while riding the superhero boom that Marvel set off.

There's also the matter of quality. While Marvel has an overarching, long term plan for their cinematic universe (that was only a "what if" off in the distance when The Incredible Hulk released), Sony is planning Spiderman sequels left and right without so much as having a general story direction, seemingly to take the money and run before the superhero movie bubble (that they're holding a needle to) bursts. Marvel has hired directors who seem to have actual passion for what they're doing, and has taken some pretty serious creative risks along the way.

I'm no Marvel fanboy (they've made some missteps along the way, from the way Iron Man 3 wrapped up to the fact that Thor 2 accomplished almost nothing in terms of in-universe continuity), but there's actually a big difference between Marvel's long-term "build it and they will come" approach to a money machine, and Sony's haphazard imitation carried out only because Marvel is raking it in.

I thought Amazing Spider-Man did a lot of things right, and it was a very substantial improvement over the Raimi films. I like Garfield as Peter and love Stone as Gwen. I actually got fairly upset at MovieBob for not giving ASM the chance it deserved because of all the baggage he brought to it.

But he's right about this one. 100% correct. After I saw it, I just felt empty and used. Spidey is that one character for me that I grew up loving more than any other, and this movie did make me feel fatigued with him and frustrated with the business machinations that have resulted in the movie being made.

Oh, and the Iron Man 2 comparison is very apt. A bunch of completely unconnected stuff that doesn't really work together. Even down to the exact same scene of having a child dressed as the hero stand up to the villain until the hero steps in to save him. Having rewatched IM2 recently (the first time I did after seeing Avengers and IM3), I can say it holds up a bit better, but still very weak.

You know, the way Bob feels about these movies is exactly how I feel about the so-called Resident Evil movies. While I almost always disagree with Bob and in the past have enjoyed his suffering at crappy movies, this is one time where he and I are brothers in arms...even if he has mocked the thing I love just as much as he loves Spider-Man.

meh..is not even near half as bad as bob makes it sound , its just gonna be a popcorn film series

the edit option ain't working, i wanted to correct one word and instead it re post my comment

Sorry to hear that Bob. Coincidentally thats the exact feeling I got out of Spider Man 3... I didn't bother with too many movies after I saw that "PS3 didn't sell, quick call those movie people and get cracking" vomit of a film.

RiseUp:

Kumagawa Misogi:

IamLEAM1983:
Good God... I'm so sorry, Bob.

This is what happens when a studio holds onto an intellectual property not because it has some sort of vision for it, but because it sees it as a cash cow. We'll be stuck looking at a series of soulless sequels, just so Sony can squeeze every last cent they possibly can out of Peter Parker.

At this point, I'd almost *want* the rights to return to Marvel Studios and for that fanboyish setup to actually take place. Anything would be better than Sony Pictures going "Yeah, so we gotta keep the rights to Spidey because money... So yeah. Have a half-assed movie."

Or, shit - someone convince Sam Raimi to reboot those reboots. Anything, literally *anything* would be better than this.

You mean the same as Disney see there Marvel films? because look how quick the Hulk film trilogy was dropped once 'The Incredible Hulk' film flopped.

There's a difference between dropping something because it isn't financially viable to produce (keep in mind they're still expecting a massive profit) and making a film (or series of films) to retain character rights, while riding the superhero boom that Marvel set off. There's also the matter of quality. While Marvel has an overarching, long term plan for their cinematic universe, Sony is planning Spiderman sequels left and right without so much as having a general story direction, seemingly to take the money and run before the superhero movie bubble (that they're holding a needle to) bursts. Marvel has hired directors who seem to have actual passion for what they're doing, and has taken some pretty serious creative risks along the way. I'm no Marvel fanboy, but there's actually a big difference between Marvel's long-term "build it and they will come" approach to a money machine, and Sony's haphazard imitation carried out only because Marvel is raking it in.

( while riding the superhero boom that Marvel set off )

I'm sorry you mean the boom that Fox set off with X-men back in 2000 as every year since 2002 has been filled with superhero films starting with Sony's 2002 Spiderman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics

I am fine with Bob having an opinion but I think he is too over the top about it. Yes the movie does not have a traditional plot, I prefer this style of plot because it feels more like real life. Movie Bob hates Destiny but then he wants all films to have a traditional 3 act structure. Life is not like that so it is cool (at least to me) to create a movie like this. I liked Iron Man 2 as well for this reason.

Andrew Garfield works as the character, the ending was not a spoof or a joke and it was an enjoyable film. The only part I did not care for was the parent's back story since it is unnecessary. Perhaps I am lucky that I do not go into every film looking at it how Bob does. I go into films not thinking about how this is being set up for sequels and spinoffs. Beyond that one scene at the end I did not think anything was being set up for a sequel.

Oh well not like Bob and I ever agreed on movies, except Captain America 2 which I will admit was a pretty good movie but beyond that we seem to share no similar interests.

Kumagawa Misogi:

RiseUp:

Kumagawa Misogi:

You mean the same as Disney see there Marvel films? because look how quick the Hulk film trilogy was dropped once 'The Incredible Hulk' film flopped.

There's a difference between dropping something because it isn't financially viable to produce (keep in mind they're still expecting a massive profit) and making a film (or series of films) to retain character rights, while riding the superhero boom that Marvel set off. There's also the matter of quality. While Marvel has an overarching, long term plan for their cinematic universe, Sony is planning Spiderman sequels left and right without so much as having a general story direction, seemingly to take the money and run before the superhero movie bubble (that they're holding a needle to) bursts. Marvel has hired directors who seem to have actual passion for what they're doing, and has taken some pretty serious creative risks along the way. I'm no Marvel fanboy, but there's actually a big difference between Marvel's long-term "build it and they will come" approach to a money machine, and Sony's haphazard imitation carried out only because Marvel is raking it in.

( while riding the superhero boom that Marvel set off )

I'm sorry you mean the boom that Fox set off with X-men back in 2000 as every year since 2002 has been filled with superhero films starting with Sony's 2002 Spiderman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics

There was an upswing at that point, starting with the X-Men, but I don't remember the films having the same sort of cultural impact as superhero movies post-Iron Man. It might be because I was younger and didn't pay much attention to them, anyway. I wasn't saying Marvel was solely responsible for the recent boom, they just seem to me like the reason this kind of thing has grown as large as it currently is.

This is exactly how JJ Abram's Star Trek movies felt to me.

Bob this is how we felt when Man of Steel came out, remember your first review the positive one. The feelings you have from Spider-man 2 about disgust and how something you love was twisted is exactly how me and my brother felt about MoS. Something we loved changed into an unrecognisable shape.

I wish I had heard this from you back then, but now I realise it's because your not as big a fan of Superman. I don't envy what you have experienced man of steel sucked all the happy memories I had of the character and deformed them into utter garbage.

Stay strong Bob, in time you will realise that the old Spidey is still there, but so will this movie... it's up to you to divert your attention from it's existence.

I actually think Andrew Garfield does well as Spidey...

If the rights were to revert back to Disney-Marvel i say keep him on board. I admit the film is weak, but i wouldn't say it's this bad, i love Spiderman, and while i was slightly miffed at the film it was still enjoyable.

Times like this, I'm convinced Bob is taking the piss.

It's not even the brunt of the movie review, or that I think it's an awesome movie. I haven't seen it yet. But from the "when they change something you love, it hurts" shtick, I'm thinking, "real people don't act like this, do they?" No, seriously. I mean, if a bad movie based on a property I liked harmed me, I would have flipped ALL the tables when Raimi took a dump on Spider-Man and made a very shiny series of pictures with Tobey Maguire wearing Spider-Man pajamas.

But life goes on, and so did I. Bayformers? Eh. Bayturtles? Also eh.

This isn't about the "breaking Bob" thing, which I also find puzzling, but specifically, specifically the preamble. I don't get it.

I also don't get how a better movie can break someone, but just the "it's ruined forever" mentality. But that's not the part that had me scratching my head. It's the idea that there's this normal reaction from people that a bad adaption somehow hurts the rest of their media collection.

Bob hating this movie was a given. It's like expecting Harry Potter fans to admit the last book was cobbled together and poorly done. But the rest? He can't be serious, can he?

Oh my God! =(

After listening to this review, all I wanna do right now is drop everything, get in the car, drive to Boston, find Bob, and do what I can to comfort him in this time of need. Just hearing him pour his heart out like felt like someone who just lost a close friend. I can certainly relate to this and I think I speak for everyone here (except for those who liked this movie. God knows what their taste in movies lean towards) that none of us want to see something we love turned into something horrible. I'm not talking about people who piss and moan about Johnny Storm/Human Torch being played by a black actor. I'm talking about a comic book world and its characters turned into a passionless, corporate cash cow that is not only insulting to the art of cinema but damaging to it. And this is what Sony is doing to Spider-Man right now.

A lot of people give Sam Raimi shit over the first three Spider-Man movies. Some of them valid, some of them trivial, and some just plain fucking stupid (No, I will not say which). But, regardless of all that, at least the first two Raimi Spider-Man movies had a vision. They had the ear markings of an artist who loved these characters and their world. Even the 3rd one still had that vision, but its where we see the tainted claw marks of the corporation slowly starting to mangle it just to appease the money gods. And I can proudly say that Mark Webb is not that kind of a director. I've sat through the first one and there was no artistic vision to speak of. Webb was just a willing yes man sent in to do a job like an obedient little monkey; merely wear the vest and fez, do a little dance for the masses, and collect the money while Sony works the street organ. Much like M. Night was when Will Smith hired him to make After Earth. I'm not gonna fault the actors on this. Andrew Garfield did an OK job. Unfortunately, he and other actors were in the same ship the actors (excluding Kevin Costner) from Man of Steel were in; trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. Sadly, all the enthusiasm and can-do attitude cannot save a movie with a lousy script and piss-poor direction.

What really pisses me off about this is that, according to Rotten Tomatoes.com, a lot of critics say this movie is flawed but they're giving it a pass anyway. Even the website itself gave it a pass. So that tells me two things: 1) Rotten Tomatoes has no clue how to do its fucking job and 2) the critics are either completely incompetent or corporate whores or all of the above. No wonder I take the words of online reviews like Brad "Cinema Snob" Jones more seriously than the so-called "professionals". -_-

Fuck it. I'm gonna tell everyone I can to avoid Amazing Spider-Man 2 like the plague. If you still need to see it, then wait until it hits Red Box. Don't give Sony anymore money than the rock-bottom price of a one-day rental.

My basic opinion is that Spider-Man has been a mess for a while now, and the movies just seem to continue this trend. On some levels I confess to a certain degree of schadenfreude [SP] at seeing Bob's reaction to this after he's pretty much promoted some of the various changes made to characters I have been a fan of in the name of "political correctness" as being good things, while I've had very similar reactions to those Bob has to Spider-Man based around people messing around with an IP I'm invested in.

That said, Spider-Man can be tricky to write, which I think is a lot of the problem. People want to keep him as a teenager or student in a lot of the media despite him having become a bona-fide adult in the comics. What's more people tend to forget that neither the current version or the old "Toby McGuire" version had it quite right. Peter Parker is supposed to be a nerd, but at the same time he's not supposed to be *that* much of a Sad Sack, people tend to forget the point of characters like Felicia Hardy and that Peter probably could have stolen Flash's girlfriend in school if he really put his mind to it, and drama over Felicia liking him was part of what inspired Flash's antics. Not to mention Felicia dressing up as "The Black Cat" and the whole interplay between their costumed identities as well, which made Felicia/Peter pairings popular "what if" scenarios and so on. In short to do a perfect "Spider Man" they need to walk between the extremes we're seeing in the movies. The fact is Peter is both the science geek misfit, AND the "cool dude" who remains unfazed in incredible situations and drops a constant stream of wisecracks. The trick is to make it so Peter easily steps into the costumed role on a lot of levels (guilt aside) and it should be obvious enough that his identity being compromised because of it should always be kind of a threat.

The thing is though that for quite a while now we've seen Spider-Man dumped on because it seems few people know how to write the character or have any ideas on where to go with it. We've had garbage like "The Clone Saga" and "One More Day", not to mention that most of the stuff people keep coming up to do with the character seems to revolve around it being someone else as Spider-Man. Say the "Ultimate" reboot of Spider-Man as a black-Hispanic teenager named Milo Morales (not even Peter Parker anymore... yet still we're being told this was Spider-Man, surprisingly Bob didn't seem to be on the hate-wagon for that one), or the whole "Superior Spider Man" thing where they pretty much killed Peter and had him living on as a ghost inside Doc Ock's head, with one of his greatest foes becoming the new Spider Man.

The point I'm getting at here is that when the comics themselves miss a lot with the character (and investing in major events as they miss) and keep trying to reinvent the character in new and attention-getting ways for sales, it's not surprising that the latest movies are doing the same, and themselves have done a lot of reinvention.

To be honest I was never big on the whole "innate web shooters" aspect of the Toby Macguire movies and the way they had the little spikes coming out of his hands to crawl, and I think they made him too much of a dweeb. The new movies restored some of the original mythology but too the character too much to the extreme other end of his personality spectrum. The end result is that real fans can rest assured that we have not seen a "final word" on Spider Man movies and bringing it perfectly to the cinema. In a way it gives us something to look forward to. One "sad" thing about the current Marvel "Cinematic Universe" is that they did such a good job with so many of those characters I doubt anyone will ever be able to do better without inviting a negative comparison. On some levels when the rights revert back to Marvel it will probably be when those trains grind to a halt, and then after a break they can work on things like "Spider-Man", "The X-men", and "The Fantastic Four" with the potential of creating them to the same quality.

As far as the Spider-Man villains go, yeah... I have to agree they seemed fairly sad. They really needed to at least give Electro his trademark costume, and really the whole defining characteristic of "The Rhino" is how he's bonded to his suit, just making him a mook in battle armor doesn't capture the essence of the character. Especially seeing as half the point of "The Rhino" is that he'd probably be a world class strongman character (his upper limits of strength and durability are impressive even by Marvel standards if I remember) if he wasn't so stupid. He's a guy that Spider Man pretty much has to outsmart or outmaneuver, being tough enough where he generally just can't take him head on.

caballitomalo:
Sorry to hear that Bob. Coincidentally thats the exact feeling I got out of Spider Man 3... I didn't bother with too many movies after I saw that "PS3 didn't sell, quick call those movie people and get cracking" vomit of a film.

Spider-Man 3 was the best of the series. If you're going to make a ridiculously stupid movie, you might as well not half-ass it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 54106)