Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Escape to the Movies: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

Special tuesday episode, just for this week's big Spider-Fail.

ALSO: Big Picture is on at it's regularly-scheduled time for "Batman Revisited: Part II."


Robert Garlen said...

For what it was I enjoyed it, enjoyed Raimi's version better, but there are aspects of this one i enjoyed more. Namely Uncle Ben.

Taylor said...

Okay, I wanted to get in before people start flooding this with "That must not be true since Bob is clearly biased."

1. Assuming that he must have just hated it because he was 'biased' against it is itself a bias against his opinion.

2. Even if Bob were demonstrably biased against the Amazing Spider-Man, that doesn't make his opinion wrong. If you want to say that this is a great movie, point out why you think it is.

Omorka said...

So - you used Casper for "soulless" the first time, and then Slimer the second time?

I - I get why you did that, but honestly, that juxtaposition of those two characters makes my brain go all 'splody.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...


Bless you. I doubt your wisdom will be heeded, but I sincerely appreciate the effort.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

Well, this isn't terribly surprising. I'll still see it to judge for myself, but I'm definitely apprehensive about it.

That being said, the Raimi movies, while they were pretty good overall (even with 3 being 50% utter garbage), had some massive failings of their own.

Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst casting aside, I never liked Peter's lifelong infatuation with Mary Jane. Come on, this is the guy that actively avoided meeting MJ for the longest time because his aunt was the one trying to hook them up, and how great was the last blind date your family set up for you?

I also didn't like the "my spider-powers are shorting out on me for no reason" plot thread from the second one. It was just dumb.

I also didn't like the fact that he unmasked, showing hundreds of people his face, at nearly every available opportunity. To be fair, based on the footage in the review, that trend looks to be continuing.

Venom was also a complete load of garbage. Everything from the horrific casting to the complete garbage scriptwork involving Venom was atrocious.

And, to respond to your question regarding how they mess up Uncle Ben's demise scenario: ask Sam Raimi. After all, he had the F*&^ING Sandman kill Ben because he got bumped by the guy Peter let go. Really?! Talk about destroying the reason Peter becomes Spider-Man in the first place.

It's my opinion that the definitive Spider-Man movie simply hasn't been made yet, and I honestly think it never will.

Unless Sony finally gives the rights back to Marvel, of course. They'd knock it out of the park.

*Side note: since you briefly mentioned First Class, I figure I can, too. It was a decent movie (with some disturbing undertones), but nowhere near as good as X2. Just sayin'.*

Kevin B. Nix said...

I had a lot of fun with Spidey, and I thought it could have been so much worse. The only thing that stands out in my mind as particularly bad is Parker as an individual character: his arc is not as interesting or fleshed out script-wise as everything else. Other than that I had so much fun with this movie.

Lord Slithor said...

Well, I guess I shouldn't have been so surprised you wouldn't like it. I at least was expecting you to not like it. But to rip into it with the venom and vitriol you did surprised even me. You were pretty much actively hating this movie since it was announced it was being made, and I knew and understood full well the reasons why.

I had at least hoped though you would have said something like, "Okay, it's not nearly as bad as I thought it would be, but I still didn't like it." But I haven't seen you have a hate-on for a movie since your review of The Expendables. And I'm guessing this will probably be just as controversial.

I also think this is going to be a case once again of us wildly disagreeing on a movie. Films you loved like Splice and Tree of Life I hated (Seriously, dude, you really oversold the dinosaurs in that one. I was expeting something on the scale of Fantasia's "Rite of Spring" segment, and instead I got one, maybe two scenes of dinosaurs with the rest of the movie being Brad Pitt being a dick to his family and shots that lingered too long). Meanwhile stuff like Bay's first Transformers, Abrams' Star Trek, John Carter and Prometheus I loved. So while you may hate this movie with every fiber of your being, everything I've seen of this movie says to me I'm going to like it a LOT more than Raimi's movies. I'm sorry, but I just didn't like them. I had lots of problems with them, and they just felt wrong to me. So compared to those, I think this movie actually "gets it." So if you'd like to lump me in with all those "douchebags" who shouldn't drive or vote just because I might end up liking this movie, go right ahead.

Browncoat Eric said...

Haven't watched Bob's vid yet but I saw the movie last night And I'm here to tell you everything Bob has said leading up to this is wrong. It is embarrassingly better then Rami's films and makes those movies look like the 90's Cap movie. This is the closest to the comics we have ever gotten for spidey.

Blue Highwind said...

Well, judging by Moviebob's terrible nitpicky criticism of Batman Returns, this movie is going to ROCK. I cannot wait to take my baby brother to this.

Aiddon said...

I read the synopsis and I was foaming at the mouth about them changing Uncle Ben's death. The entire thing just reeked of meddling and cynicism. After Dark Knight Rises I think I'm done with superhero movies for awhile.

Anonymous said...

Saw it last night.

Look, it wasn't perfect nor was it to Spider-Man as Batman Begins was to Batman. I had issues with but I alsomfoundit pretty fun. To put it simply, I felt the Raimi film handled the origin better and the second half of Amazing Spider-Man was solid. Better than 1? Debatable. Better than 2? Personally, no. Better than 3? Fuck yes!

I just don't see what Bob hates about this even when he explains it. The film has some general problems that keep it from being outstanding, but it is far from the terrible piece of trash Bob makes it out to be.

Oh well...at least now we so called Nolanites can defend The Dark Knight Rises without Bob going nuts saying we're bias and already made indoor mind about the film....right?

Dave from canada said...

@ Taylor

Except no.

Bob has zero credibility towards this movie because he was making shit up about it to get people to hate it before it was even filmed.

This isn't like it comes out of nowhere. He's been whining about this for years. When he thought it was about carnage it was bad. When he thought it was a more comic accurate version it was bad. He even argued that a snarky superhero wouldn't work (because everyone just HATED iron man). He tried to use homophobia to get people to dislike the movie. he's demonstrated that there is NOTHING he would not do to make peopel hate the movie. He all but admitted this. If this movie is a success, no spidey in avengers 2.

And now the film is getting a positive reaction and is apparently on track to be quite successful despite raimi killing the franchise....so now all he can do is throw a tantrum.

cdstephens said...

I'm a little less trusting of this review compared to other reviews because the amount of personal contempt makes it seem like more of a rant or a tantrum than a fair review. The fact that Bob has been against this movie ever since it was initially conceived because he wants Spiderman in the Avengers badly doesn't help things either. I'll probably see it and judge it for myself.

MichaelAngelo said...

"I just don't see what Bob hates about this even when he explains it. The film has some general problems that keep it from being outstanding, but it is far from the terrible piece of trash Bob makes it out to be."


ram said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ram said...

skipping this one, not because bob said its crap- because honestly I have no need for a new spiderman movie. Spiderman 3 tied things up nicely. If I want to watch a spiderman film I'll just pop in the dvd, somethings don't need a reboot (esp in such a short time). Hopefully Batman takes a brake after Nolans done.

People so upset with Bob's hate for the movie, I don't get it. No ones forcing you to read his blog and take his OPINION as the be all end all.

Another thing, I still don't get everyone's love for First Class, saw it again and still can't get over how meh it was. The whole film comes across as if it was a really bad fan made film, from the wardrobe to some of cringe worthy dialogue everything with the exception of Fassbender was terrible.

Popcorn Dave said...

Pity, Bob. Even if this is a 100% honest statement of your views, no-one with half a brain will take this review seriously knowing how much baggage you brought into the cinema.

I'd say "well, at least Bob is done talking about Spider-Man now", but of course, for the next few months you're going to keep bringing this film up in every video and blog post you can get away with, just like you did with The Expendables and The Avengers.

Let's just not go through all this again with Man of Steel, okay? Please? I notice you haven't mentioned it for a while... is that because you're trying to be a bit more measured this time around? Kudos if so.

Fallen Angel said...


I can already predict the amount of hatred, bias accusations, and internet-wide outrage you're gonna receive in the coming weeks, Bob, so let me just say that why I shall not add my voice and opinion to the discussion until I have actually SEEN the film (yes, Sony's gonna get my money, sorry - unless I can somehow sneak into the movie theatre through the back exit or something. But that's just WRONG, so, yeah...) I DO respect your opinion and will continue to follow your work for more of the entertainment and thought-provoking brain-food it has provided me with so far (as opposed to screaming from the metaphorical Internet rooftops that you are a hypocritical biased whatever just because you didn't like something everyone else did).

Though, if I WERE to make an observation, I must say you haven't torn a movie apart with such gusto since...I dunno, Green Lantern? Transformers 2?

Oh, one last thing...any more thoughts on my "diminished expectations" hypothesis a few posts earlier? Jus' curious ;)

MerelyAFan said...

As someone who has stated many comments addressing Bob's points about this film (perhaps too many), let me simply state my issue with him here.

I have nothing against (nor can say anything negative about) Bob not liking this film, him expressing his opinion on the various promotional materials (pictures, trailers, etc), or stating that his skepticism/pessimism about this film was a sign of bias. I have no quarrel with him in those aspects.

However, his self righteous comments bristling as the mere accusation of bias, and his rather ill-executed claim that its his role as journalist and commentator to express his opinion and (evidently) its unfair to to keep such comments in mind for his eventual review rub me the wrong way.

In this matter that Bob strikes me was someone wanting it both ways, wishing to be considered with the credibility of a genuine film reviewer while still engaging in the snarky internet/comic book talk that so dominates the internet. No problem with that, and he certainly shouldn't limited in trying to do his career the way he wants.

(Putting aside of course that ASM was brought up numerous times in various blog articles and twitter comments unrelated to it, which would strike some as perhaps blending the line between expected contemporary commentary and an outright excuse for a diss)

That being said, getting so irritated that actions in one affect the other seems rather naive at best and almost childish at worst. Simply put a mere shrug and acknowledgement that some will believe he's biased, certainly would have sufficed in this issue, but his insistence beyond that on the likes of Twitter I don't believe does him any favors.

Nor does the particular double standard that seems so liberally applied by Bob in this particular area (I'm not biased, however you are for wanting a snarky Spider-Man and/or something grim gritty). How much credibility either statement has is a matter of interpretation, but of all the things he appears as when saying both roughly at the same time, open minded is not high on the list.

Again I have no quarrel with Bob's opinion on this film, just that his tone regarding the response to him betrays a certain sense of obstinacy that doesn't suit him.

Anonymous said...

I dunno if I'll see it. I'll probably enjoy it, but I also want Marvel to get rights back.

Anonymous said...

Holy fuck is Bob overreacting!

I had issues with the film (underdeveloped characters, generic villain plot, the rehashed origin wasn't done as well as the original film) but overall there were some improvements, the performances were great, the action wasn't awe inspiring but solid. It's not different enough to be a superhero masterpiece like Dark Knight or even Spider-Man 2, but it is far from a piece of garbage. Yes, it was made for studio reasons but the final result is ultimately a solid film that I'd love to see a sequel to now that they have the grounds for a new story sans the rehashed origin to go on.

I've never seen such vile hate towards a film that is at worst, just average.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

Lizard wants to take over the world for no apparent reason... bullshit!

Loki wants to take over the world for no apparent reason... genius!

Just saying.

Sanunes said...

For some reason I am taking the extreme dislike for The Amazing Spider-Man to be directed more of the reasoning behind making the film to be the factor that drives the review to be more negative then it might deserve. At least that is the impression I got from the beginning of the review.

With that said, I don't plan on seeing The Amazing Spider-Man because I am suffering from comic based movie burnout and its probably going to detract me from seeing Dark Knight Rises as well.

ElementPaul said...

Moviebob: Fair and Balanced.

Razmere said...

As bad as the movie might be, I know for a fact that it isn't going to fill me with as much rage as "ONE MORE DAY."

NOTHING can be as bad as that.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...


- Either Bob doesn't know the Spider-Man comics like he claims he does or he is straight up lying. Anyone who has read a decent amount of the comics will tell you that this movie's depiction of Spider-Man is far closer to the comics than the Raimi movies.

- The fact Bob actually accused this movie in his review of ripping off Nolan's Batman films really makes his knowledge of Spider-Man quite suspect. Seriously, that's bottom of the barrel ignorant internet mud slinging. There is NOTHING that this movie has that ripped off of Nolan's Batman movies. NOTHING. Raimi's cheese was not how the comics were. That's just how Raimi makes movies.

- Bob has a problem with this movie's coincidences but not a problem with the Marvel Studio movie's coincidences that stretch across multiple films?

You know, how the Abomination JUST SO HAPPENS to be given the same serum that JUST SO HAPPENS to be the same one given to Captain American that JUST SO HAPPENS to come in contact with the Cosmic Cube that JUST SO HAPPENS to be what Loki wants who JUST SO HAPPENS to be the adopted brother of Thor who JUST SO HAPPENS to join the same team that Captain America leads.

The hypocrisy continues.

I'm just going to leave the web addresses to the previous posts I made regarding Movie Bob's childishness and hypocrisy right here. I go into lots of detail. Be sure to copy and paste them into your browser to be taken directly to them.





Rannoch said...

Dude, totally loved your show, but wtf? What happened while you saw that film? Did someone die?!
I doubt that we both saw the same movie. It's like you brought that critic from a dark lonesome most fucked up parallel timeline from hell to show us what could have been in the worst case scenario ever

Greg said...

I just hope the irony that his review being filled with such hate that it will likely get more people go see this movie to see if it warrents such an extreme response isn't lost on him.

I apologise as I quite enjoy the GameOver-Thinker, Escape to the Movies and the Big Piture; but in this case I do have to admitt it feels like Bob made up his mind months ago about this movie. I'm not saying he did; but it's hard to remember all his posts about the movie and then watch the review and think otherwise.

Taylor said...


Whether or not it's correct, it is just messed up how you guys are going nuts about the "hypocrisy" and evil 'bias' in this review.

You know what it really implies? That you're insecure. That you are so fragile in your opinion that the idea of someone having an alternate opinion is just horrific and the only thing you can do is try to imply that they're vicious hypocrites who must be obfuscating their REAL opinion because they are just afraid to admit how good something is.

MerelyAFan said...


Quite an interesting comment given that one could infer it's Bob who's been assigning motive to people who defend or life like the film. Even as recently as today he stated that people were defending because they were afraid of any comic book movie failing, because of course that's the only reason someone would defend it, correct? Its not actually possible that someone could like it, right?

As I stated before, I have no problem with Bob not liking this film, criticizing the promotion for it, or even being angry at its very existence (though I can't help but notices he lacks the same level of vitriol towards X-Men: First Class in that regard despite of the fact it was made for the exact reason ASM was).

However I can't say I'm particularly fond of him make belittling comments about people being excited about Spider-Man snarking or dismissing those out of hand for differing in their view of the Raimi films from him.

I ask you now, what more immediately strike you of insecurity: that, or consistently expressing a negative opinion about a film a year and half plus in advance and acting righteously outraged when people have the audacity to bring up questions of objectivity when such a film is released?

Anonymous said...

You're actually complaining about Uncle Ben in this movie?

Did you forget that they he was killed by Sandman in the Rami films?

Anonymous said...

You complained in your Men in Black 3 review about rehashing the same story over and over.

Spiderman 1, 2 and 3 all has the same story.
Good guy is forced to turn bad due to circumstances, kidnaps Mary Jane and hangs her from a high place as a trap for Spiderman.
That's the story for all three movies!!

Capt Derp said...

Re: Lord Slithor
"But I haven't seen you have a hate-on for a movie since your review of The Expendables."

Then you weren't paying attention when he did Green Lantern.

Re: Blue Highwind
"Well, judging by Moviebob's terrible nitpicky criticism of Batman Returns..."

As a child, I distinctly remember being MORE lost during that film than any other movie I'd been to. Ten years later, just to be quirky, I popped it in my old VCR...and was still as lost. There are objective plot flow errors amiss with that film, visual/artistic cornucopia aside.

That aside, I can at least understand something of the hurt and betrayal one could feel seeing one of their favorite icons of comic book heroes/heroines being altered into a by-the-numbers smash up slop to line the trough for a certain demographic that, to the older crowd, looks positively repulsive.

I can understand the feeling and the theory. But I don't subscribe to it, this time round. Not until I see with my own eyes. And should I pass on moments after in like fashion to that fated Sith Lord, someone on this internet somewhere will know what to carve on my tombstone (Just keep the damn bears out of it).

Your words are duly noted, Mr. Chipman. But I'm still going to see it. If for nothing else, because a lack of anything ELSE to do on an Independence Day afternoon. And because I'm curious.

Brady said...

You went into this wanting to hate it, how can we trust your opinion when you had already decided that opinion when the movie was first announced? The word on the movie is that its pretty good, so I will definitely be checking it out.

Nicholas said...


I could only sit through 3 minutes of your review. I don't know or care how good or bad the movie is. In this case it is irrelevant. The disdain and outrage in your voice so clearly had nothing to do with the movie and everything to do with your hatred of the project from a studio stand point. We get it, you hate what they did to Raime, you hate that it was rushed out because for financial reasons rather than creative ones, you ESPECIALLY hate that Sony has kept spiderman from your beloved avengers. None of those things, however, have anything to do with the finished product. Everything you said was only marginally backed by evidence and was hyperbolic to an extreme. You state its not as bad as green lantern and yet your reaction to green lantern was calm compared to this.

Bob, you should not have reviewed this movie. Plain and simple. No film critic can remain objective, however, for that matter neither cab a judge or lawyer, or official. However, when a case gets so unbelievably personal that there is no conceivable way that they will be able to see the truth of the case they recuse themselves. No matter how big or important the matter.

You have this same situation with Spiderman, and I would argue to a lesser extent with batman. You have such a huge fanboy complex when it comes to these types of movies that you are incapable of judging any of them with any type of clarity or intelligence.

You are one of the most intelligent and interesting film critics out there Bob. But you have NEVER had a single intelligent review of a super hero movie. You are so tangled up in your own notions of what they have to be going into them that when they do come up your reviews are shallow, hyperbolic, and all together useless for anyone reading them, good or bad. Spider man might be bad or it might be great, I don't know yet. Your review of it however was painful to watch and as a fan I have to say, that you really need to look at the reviews you do of the genre you care about the most, because most of them suck, not because you are a bad critic, but because you let your fanboyism cloud your judgement with them far too much.

Browncoat Eric said...

This was simply embarrassing. The single most biased pathetic "I refuse to admit I'm wrong" ranting masking itself as film criticism. Whats even worse is your lie about being a Spider-man fan. Ask anyone who has ACTUALLY read the comics and isn't saying he does to defend Rami's films which bore no actual resemblance to the comics. I have lost all respect for you and you're opinion.

Silens Cursor said...

Just got back from seeing the movie - it was okay. Wasn't bad, but it certainly wasn't great and definitely wasn't 'better than The Avengers like I've heard some people saying.

Most of Bob's criticisms are pretty valid, but at the same time, I suspect some of the vitriol towards taking the project away from Raimi is taking center stage here. And you know what, I get that vitriol, because not only did Raimi want to use the Lizard for one of his movies, but I think he could have done a halfway decent job with it.

That being said, while this movie is cribbing from the cheatsheet that is the 2002 Spider-Man movie, it's also got much stronger leads in Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone than Tobey McGuire and Kirsten Dunst. And yeah, I liked Peter's snark and the mechanical webshooters, and I think the instrumental score of the movie was excellent, adding some real gravitas to scenes that needed them.

You know what? Fuck it, Bob and everyone have their opinions, I posted mine here: http://spectrum-pulse.blogspot.ca/2012/07/movie-review-amazing-spider-man.html. As it is, I hope it makes enough money for a sequel because I'd like to see the death of Gwen Stacy done well on screen. It's iconic, and I bet Andrew Garfield could sell it well.

munchie64 said...

Ok so Bob didn't like the movie... neither did 29% of Rotten Tomatoes critics. Go bitch at them too.

Seriously even if his hatred is biased, he does a pretty good job explaining his problems here.

Greg said...

To be fair I don't see many people here who disagree with him who are being insulting or mean (unfortently a few are... but that always happens).

Bob gave his opinions and people here are simply giving theirs as to why they disagree. Many of the comments here are doing a terrific job explaining their problems as well.

Browncoat Eric said...

@munchie64 If you saw the movie you'd know he didn't. And if you read the comics you'd know he didn't. He didn't explain a damn thing about why he doesn't like it. He just said "I never gave the movie a chance. I said I wasn't going to like it and I don't. I don't care if it is in every way better then the Rami movies. I don't care if it's much much much closer to the comics. I refuse to concede. I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. HUMPH!"

Popcorn Dave said...

Christ, just look at him howling away on Twitter. What a baby.

I especially like his suggestion that only "tenured professors of journalism and filmmaking" are qualified to tell him he's doing a shitty job. Bit old to be using that line, aren't we Bob?

Chris Cesarano said...

Let's play a game.

Peter Parker JUST SO HAPPENS to be touring at Oscorp where it JUST SO HAPPENS an experimental spider JUST SO HAPPENS to bite him and grant him super powers. Oh yeah, and Peter Parker JUST SO HAPPENS to be friends with Norman Osborn's son who JUST SO HAPPENS to be the Green Goblin.

Otto Octavius JUST SO HAPPENS to be working on a project that JUST SO HAPPENS to be in the interest of Oscorp that JUST SO HAPPENS to go wrong.

Sandman JUST SO HAPPENS to fall into an experimental Oscorp science device that JUST SO HAPPENS to grant him super powers.

Gee, that's amazing how it doesn't matter that everything ties to Oscorp in Raimi's films, or that Sandman JUST SO HAPPENS to be the guy that REALLY killed Uncle Ben.

I want to give MovieBob's criticisms a fair chance, just as I gave this movie that I was expecting to be disappointed in. The problem is I cannot imagine MovieBob gave it a legitimate fair chance.

I will confess that the Uncle Ben's death moment really didn't do much for me. Then again, I knew it was coming. I knew it was going to happen and I was waiting to see how they'd handle it. Did it work as well? No, not at all, but I also feel MovieBob is missing a lot of stuff the writers were trying to work with.

Yes, a bunch of business suits demanded this movie be made, but the end product must have had some passionate people working hard to make this a good movie. Peter Parker actually has a slower arc of growth compared to the first film. Because he didn't act, Uncle Ben dies. He becomes a vigilante just so he can get revenge, but he quickly learns that he needs to do like his Uncle Ben said and like Captain Stacy pointed out. He needs to actually help people and become more altruistic. Just as he had a hand in the demise of his Uncle Ben, he had a hand in the creation of The Lizard, only now he has the chance to make things right.

Raimi's origin gave more weight to Uncle Ben's death, certainly, but the actual movie-long growth of Peter Parker was a much more interesting attempt. In fact, this Peter Parker was better than the "Duuurrrr I dunno how to talks to the hot red heads!" Peter Parker in Sam Raimi's ultimate scream queen infested cheese fest.

I will concede that the Curt Connors arc is probably what will get me upon repeat viewings of the film. I agree it would have been better were he more of a misunderstood anti-hero, and I could also see what the third act conflict would be from a mile away once they revealed THE OBJECT CENTRAL TO THE LIZARD'S ULTIMATE GOAL. It was disappointing, and one scene in particular felt too much of a repeat of Willam Defoe's insane Gollum monologue moment.

While I want to take some of these critiques seriously, muzzle flare on the web shooters as a complaint...you're just digging for reasons to hate.

I will also concur that the "Hey let's have people from New York team up to help out Spiderman" was cheesy, but moments like that I force myself to take a step back and think "What would my mom or sister, who are notorious for liking bad movies and are pretty representative as the larger mainstream populace, think about this?" It's just like the end of Batman Begins where that guy keeps on reminding the audience over and over again just why it is so important that Batman stop that train even though it was completely explained five minutes ago.

Chris Cesarano said...

Was it a perfect film? No, and on repeat viewings I'll probably notice so many problems, just as I started to see Raimi's films for the cheese fests they really were with an uninteresting protagonist.

This movie tried to do a lot. It brought Peter back to high school, y'know, BECAUSE HE STARTED OUT AS A TEENAGER IN THE COMICS, and had him deal with being a teenager. You know what? His love story with Gwen Stacy in this single movie was a lot more interesting than his love story with Mary Jane in all three of Raimi's films. Flash Thompson was an actual character. You actually got an idea of who Peter Parker is, which is a not-very popular kid but also not an outcast. He's got some social ineptitudes but he doesn't make ME want to beat him up for his lunch money. In other words, HE'S PETER MOTHERFUCKING PARKER.

There are plenty of things to like about this movie and plenty it did better than Sam Raimi. While I give you the benefit of the doubt for MOST things Bob, I am not at all surprised that you found every reason you could to hate it. How could you not? On a film that's already trying to do so much, you go ahead and bitch that it doesn't shamelessly toss J. Jonah Jameson in there? For what? How would that have improved this movie in any way, shape or form?

Oh, that's right, it wouldn't.

I don't know why your review pissed me off so much MovieBob. Maybe it's the audacity you have to claim a lack of bias, or that you dismiss anyone that claims you have it. I just find it strange that I was walking in expecting to waste my money, and instead walked out thinking it was pretty good.

The biggest thing The Amazing Spider-Man had going against it wasn't that it was demanded by a bunch of corporate suits that had the greediest of intentions. It is that Raimi's films exist at all and thus comparison and expectation are unavoidable. If this is what we had gotten back in the day, I imagine you'd have at least had a few more positive opinions on it.

Anonymous said...

I dunno why you guys are wasting time replying to Bob. Are you guys seasoned journalists or film makers?

Because if not, why would anyone bother replying to him, because your input clearly doesn't have any weight to Moviebob.

Also, Kevin Bacon wasn't the star in Footloose (the original one).

Aiddon said...

At this point I'm finding it hilarious how people are acting like Bob insulted their mother. This is some of most fun I've had with reactions since he reviewed the Expendables

Anonymous said...


About as hilarious as Bob's offended reaction at the very existence of this movie.

Fallen Angel said...


Same here. It's seriously entertaining.

Anonymous said...

So how long has this audio been sitting in the can? A month? Two?

Greg said...

This is largely unrelated; but I just now found out about the whole Ryan Perez/ Felicia Day thing. In retrospective it seems silly to be up in arms about whether Bob gave this movie a real chance or not.

When we still have things like that happen in the entertainment industry and still have way too many split over what happened; it seems kinda trivial to worry about whether or not a reviewer shows bias.

Anonymous said...

I hope you guys realize that there is no way Marvel is getting Spiderman back any time soon. Even if this movie were a colossal failure, Sony's going to keep those.

Taylor said...


Huh, apparently he's not the only person who thinks this. Let me guess, Ben Kuchera is biased and just hated this because he wanted to.

Michael Harris said...

I know Bob won't read this, but I just have to clarify some things. For the people saying that the only people calling out bias are only doing so because they liked the movie, or those condescendingly stating, to an adlult audience, that a review is subjective and, therefore, filled with opinion, your base argument is flawed and those are not understanding our argument. I watch Moviebob and I follow him here, on his blog, and twitter. We aren't angry with him because we liked it and we disagree with his opinion, we disliked it because as far back as the Social Network review and before, he clearly panned the film and he didn't give the film a chance. I can speculate with the best of them that he is just fanboy-ing out because he wants Spiderman in the Avengers (who the hell doesn't), but the fact of the matter is that we aren't mad because a subjective movie reviewer has an opinion, we are upset because this is presented as serious critique, but it is just a diatribe about a work that he never gave a chance from the conception. I have been following Bob for some time now and when I disagree with a review I can at least hold to the fact that his integrity as a critic isn't shot because he gave it a chance. I am being verbose, but the fruit of the matter is that I know for a fact that Moviebob will rail against this movie for sometime now, almost as much as he rails snarkily about the people like me accusing him of a very real bias. It doesn't matter, what matters is that Moviebob had his guns aimed at this since its conception and he tore through, very publicly, every clip, every costume choice, every sliver of information about this film in a way that destroyed any shred of critical integrity that you may have had when reviewing this movie. The majority of movie reviewers, more experienced and honest than you have called it amazing. I had hope that you would give the movie a fair shake, but you couldn't even say that the movie was average. Like I said, I know that you aren't going to admit this to us, and I know that you will deride this movie and commenters like me for the weeks to come. You can have fanboy outrage or you could have your integrity as a critic, Moviebob, you can't have both.

Popcorn Dave said...

Taylor: The film might well be bad for all I know, and people are always going to disagree. The point is not "Bob hated the film, therefore he's biased", it's "Bob IS biased, therefore a negative review from him is meaningless".

MerelyAFan said...

To Michael Harris' point, I'm not even saying Bob even needed to not give an extremely negative review of the film (though I do personally suspect the nature of its production is something he has yet to entirely get over). If he hated the promotional material and hated the film, hey more power to him in expressing such.

But he had to know that that the various comments he's made would in the minds of many call into question the legitimacy of his eventual review. Look the fact is I'm sure Bob's had to put up with a lot of obnoxious people in reference to this film, and I'm sure it must be frustrating for him to be getting so much heat for a movie that he seemingly considers to be bad and unworthy of defense.

As a semi-public figure he probably deals with a multitude of crap and dubious arguments that are to infuriating to deal with. I'm sure it must be very tempting to just ignore/lash out at all the comments that are being thrown his way, I completely get that.

In my opinion however that does not excuse his outrage at the very suggestion of bias, and his numerous comments painting all the criticism with the same brush as simple minded people who just don't get Spider-Man and are disagreeing just be contrary. I don't think all are to be dismissed out of hand with sarcastic comments about them being film scholars and journalists; as quite frankly he certainly does not need to talk down to his audience or critics to make his points.

I know Bob is a huge fan of Spider-Man, and that he himself is quite passionate about film adaptations of superheroes, especially when they shoot for bringing the very best from the comics. This sort of attitude both from him (and the more obnoxious defenders of ASM to be fair) however seems to bring the worst of comic fandom into play.

Anonymous said...

We get it!
You don't like "Grim & Gritty"!
Give it a rest!

Aiddon said...


I had to cringe when they called Peter's school "Midtown Science High School." WHAT???? The other examples just paints a picture of sloppy, amateurish story-telling.

SettoJetPodcast said...

Are you sure you're familiar with the Spider-Man franchise? Because I've gotta say - I've read nearly all the original 616 run, Spider-Girl, and Ultimate Spider-Man. And Amazing Spider-Man's more developed and fleshed out treatment did more justice to the franchise in one film than Sam Raimi or perpetually morose and dopey Tobey Macquire managed to in three films. Every flaw you complain about can easily be thrown back at the Toby films, magnified.

Oh wait, I admit that Toby's Peter had a slightly more identifiable personality - albeit that of a mopey, unfun, wet blanket that was asking for a punch in the face from the Rhino.

Raimi's Spider-Man 3 did far more damage to the franchise than anything Garfield's posse has or likely will put out.

Also, quit crying that they can't tie Spider-Man into the Avengers. Spider-Man doesn't belong on the Avengers. He's consistently a character that does not play well with others. A lot of the pathos and drama from the character is simply removed if Peter Parker can just ask Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic to handle some super villain so he can make it to his job on time. The hero works best on his own. Just like the X-men. And I'm personally glad that Spider-Man's schtick of being a LONE HERO in Manhattan and Mutants being feared and hated consistently for HAVING POWERS rather than simply having the wrong KIND of powers isn't muddling up the Avengers and vice versa.

Nicholas said...

Ok Bob, I have already stated my opinion of your review, in that regardless of the films quality you should not have posted a review, your irrational hatred for it having been made so public for months. I will not mention that here. Instead I would like to bring up some contentions you make in your review that I believe to be factually inaccurate. I will not address things about overall film quality, those being completely subjective (though I very much liked the film).

First your analysis of the lizard's motivations are so wildly inaccurate that I think there were certain points in the movie you may not have been at your most aware. The Lizard never says he wants to conquer the world. He simply wants to spread his "cure"/genetic alterations to create a superior more advanced race, drained of all weakness, to the entire earth. This seems like a fairly logical link for a deranged man, whom had an unhealthy obsession for abolishing man's imperfections even before he was corrupted by the "cure."

You then factor in that the movie very clearly ties the serum Connors is making with the one Osborne will eventually consume to become the green goblin, and it is very easy to see that Connors is in madness that creates aggression and rage. Thus his designs on the most extreme and evasive "solution" to man's weakness.

I struggle to see how these are random and wild leaps. There is a very deliberate and clear progression hear of the lizards ideas and madness. Whether you like this progression may be subjective, but to say he randomly is leaping from one position to another and wants to conquer the world is factually inaccurate.

The second is your statement about how the film is one giant coincidence of "just so happens to be connected" events. What you did there, that can be done with almost every film and major piece of literature that has ever been produced, both good and bad. Some of the most acclaimed and famous works of fiction (the Greek tragedies, and Shakespeare in particular)are the worst offenders of this actually. This is a nothing argument, and a dishonest one at that.

I want to go into the character development of some of the protagonists as well, but that strays farther into subjectivity than I would like.

It is clear to me that you recognize the film is at the very least a competently directed and acted genre film that is at worst mediocre. You seem to see that, and at times in your review almost admit it. However, your vitriol and extreme and embarrassing bias hide this, and make for a pretty terrible review.

I'm fine with you not liking it and thinking it mediocre, or even fairly bad. But the way you reviewed this film, forgoing fact to stain it in the eyes of your viewers, seems wrong to me.

Ericson said...

As someone who saw the movie and thought it was the most agonizingly paced series of thoughtless plot points guided by nothing more than a bunch of unanswered (and honestly, uninteresting) questions; I can't believe how much positive review it is getting.

And I'm a fan of the new outfit... But the whole story, and the way it was told, was utterly brutal.

Deimos Masque said...


Um, in the comics that was the name of his school.

Anonymous said...

Bob's credibility? Oh please! This is the guy that recommended people see The Last Airbender. I watch EttM cause it's entertaining as hell, but it's an absolute crap shoot as to whether he's actually right about anything.

Dave from canada said...

@ deimos How dare you bring facts into this? Don't you know that the studio made the new movie to make money? Clearly the worst of all sins! No creative effort has any value unless it is free....or bob likes it.

Chris Cesarano said...

@Aiddon, @Fallen Angel and @...Anonymous I guess?

In terms of this rage being entertaining, it is strange. I knew that MovieBob was going to dislike the movie from the get-go. I've been watching Escape to the Movies long enough that he rarely ever bends. I think one of the few exceptions is Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where before the film's release he was very skeptical (in particular because of the first trailer). But most of the time, well, what you hear is what you get.

I've met Bob in person, so I try to respond like a person. In fact, I try my best to remember that everyone on the Internet is a person and I shouldn't lash out. So I assumed MovieBob would dislike this movie for the same reason I can assume my friend will dislike any Halo game just because it is named Halo.

But something about his review made me want to explode. I don't know why, but it did.

This is not a perfect movie, the fact that it had so many different writers on board is pretty obvious, and it felt like Sony tried to cram two separate films in here (becoming Spiderman and stopping the Lizard), making it a bit disjointed at parts.

And yet I still managed to enjoy it quite a bit.

I will admit that this may not remain true on repeat viewings. I stopped liking Raimi's versions so much after seeing them again and again. Their flaws stood out more and more. So in the end it might not be as good as I felt when I first saw it.

But it wasn't as bad as he made it out to be.

Plus, as I said, there's nitpicking that just screams bias. He mentions terrible CG. Well let's look at Raimi's Spider-man. Remember the scene when the Green Goblin first attacks? Remember how terrible the pumpkin bomb CG looked? And most of all, remember how much Kirsten Dunst hanging precariously from a crumbling balcony looked like a movie set? In fact, add a couple of wires and a green landing mat and it would have looked like a special features recording of how they made it.

Yet this stuff gets a pass? Why? Because MovieBob, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, allows his judgment to be changed by personal feelings. I'd just like some level of acknowledgment of that, as he had when it came to the Tim & Eric review. I know I don't like that brand of humor, but it was nice to hear Bob confess that his review is based on a personal preference for that sort of thing.

I'd just like that level of honesty where the Raimi films vs. this one are concerned, be it honesty with the audience or honesty with himself.

Lord Slithor said...

Well, Bob, I finally saw this movie today. I've seen and heard you rip into movies that you really hated. And while they came off more like angry fanboy rants than actual reviews, I could at least see where your arguments had some merit. But never before have I seen you so off base with a movie as this one. Nicholas was right: you should have recused yourself from reviewing this movie (Though I imagine you pretty much had to review it for The Escapist, as much as you probably wouldn't have wanted to). And as much as it pisses you off, it's the truth: you have bias.

Also, I have known Spider-Man for longer than you have, having been familiar with his many media incarnations over the years, from the 1960's cartoon to Ultimate Spider-Man. And I can say with confidence that you, sir, do not know Spider-Man as well as you might think.

In short, this single Spider-Man movie succeeded for me where all three of Raimi's movie failed. I know that you're butthurt because Raimi wasn't involved, and that it looks like Spider-Man won't be going back to Marvel/Disney anytime soon because of this film. And believe me, if I thought this movie was the piece of crap that you thought it was, I'd be right up there with you. But to me, a good story is a good story, regardless of who was responsible for making it. And judging TASM on its own merits as a superhero movie - and more importantly as a Spider-Man movie - it's a damn good one.

None of the issues you had with this movie were a problem for me. Not even the crane sequence. In fact, I found it WAY more believable than the subway train scene in Spider-Man 2, which still toady comes off as manipulative and schmaltzy and heavy-handed. Sam Raimi may be a great action director, but subtlety is not his strong suit (something that, on the other hand, Marc Webb does very well).

BTW, those "muzzle-flashes" weren't really muzzle-flashes at all; they were the buttons on the webshooters being activated. And the effect was pretty subdued. Had you not pointed them out, I wouldn't have even known they were there.

The only really bad thing I can say about this movie was that the bulb burned out on the projector or something in the theater I saw it in. So I missed the last few seconds, including the post-credits scene...although I could hear it. So I'm guessing that was Norman Osborn himself talking to Connors? I guess I'll have to wait until the Blu-Ray.

Incidentally, the management gave all of us free passes because of that, which I'll very likely use towards The Dark Knight Rises.

At this point, Bob, I really have to call your credentials, as well as your credibility and even your journalistic integrity, into question. I think The Escapist needs a second movie reviewer. Not only to review the movies you may not want to see and or have strong personal prejudices towards, but also to counterbalance your arguments. In short, you need a Gene Siskel to your Roger Ebert. I may not be a college professor, which you may prefer, but I DO have a Bachelor's Degree in Mass Communications with a minor in Journalism. I've studied film, and know just as much about it as you, if not more. I am also a major geek. And odds are I can do just as well a job at reviewing as you, if not better. So I am going to apply to The Escapist, asking them if they'd be willing to take on a second movie reviewer to provide a second opinion if needed. Consider the gauntlet thrown down!

Fallen Angel said...

Just got back from seeing it. and while I admired the acting, and the directing, and a couple of nice little touches, I feel that it just didn't work for me as a movie. Bear in mind I actually left all baggage and prejudgments at the door when I entered the cinema, and I started off enjoying myself, then got more and more depressed as the movie went on.

If I feel Bob is slightly hyperbolic at times, I cannot deny that he brings up some very good points in his review. The screenplay is a mess, the Lizard bits just get ridiculous with the terrible CGI, and the crane sequence was plain stupid. Andrew Garfield does some great work, but the whole thing just didn't feel like Spider-Man. Sorry, but this ain't gonna be a version I remember.

And as for this massive backlash against Bob, I refuse to participate. Biased or not, unfair or not, he gave his opinion. Telling him how to do his job and calling for him to be sacked isn't going to help matters. Critics are biased all the time, it's a habit some can't shake. How many d'you think lined up to take pot shots at Clash of the Titans, or kick the latest superhero movie around town? For God's sake, A.O. Scott gave the Avengers a negative review, and if I remember correctly, he too criticised the circumstances of the filmmaking. Know what? He kept his job. He's still a critic.

At the end of the day, I think everyone has already made up their own minds about the film. People love it? Great. People hate it? Fine. It's all opinion, and if there's one thing you can never be worng about, it's your own opinion.

Capt Derp said...

Having returned from this movie, I can safely conclude the following:

1) Whatever his pre-release conceptions about this movie, Bob was mostly accurate with how utterly cheap, phoned in, and effortless this movie felt. Not entirely, but mostly accurate. One should not have to enjoy a Spider-Man movie by pretending that the awkward, stuttering, brilliant-but-then-dumb hero on the screen is not, in fact, Spider-Man twenty minutes into the film's run. One should DEFINITELY not be able to, at any intense moment of Spider-Man's back in the shot while the score swells, submit to the urge to up and utter "I AM THE NIGHT!" in deep, grave tones.

2) There are numerous comments here wallowing in hypocrisy. Just as much as they want to call the gentleman wrong for his pre-release conceptions, they fail to acknowledge they themselves hold a GRUDGE based on those same conceptions, and are gleefully letting such an attitude color their words, opinions, and inflammations. I'm wondering if I'm the only one that heard Bob bitch about the production, took it with a grain of salt, and decided to take the movie in based on my own judgment.

3) The credits teaser single-handedly discredited any single or collective thing about this movie. Just on how it takes a dump on the by-the-numbers fun of the movie, I will certainly not be purchasing a ticket to any sequel under Sony/Columbia's name. An eight dollar lesson learned.

Capt Derp said...

"...single or collective fun thing about this movie..."

Backspaced when I didn't need to.

MerelyAFan said...

@Capt Derp

The difference is that just speaking for myself, I'm not claiming to be unbiased nor bristling at accusations of lack of objectivity which is more than I can say for others.

Moreover, I have far more issue with Bob's response to people's thoughts on his review than anything else. Simply put its entirely possible that Bob actually was capable of going into this film with a neutral opinion and coming out of genuinely thinking its poor.

But if you spend so many months attack the aspects of the film prior to its release, you really shouldn't be surprised when people are a touch skeptical about how much of an open mind you had for it when it was released.

Really you've already pointed out the practical damage such a continual stream of negative expression can produce, inducing not only questions of alleged bias towards Bob, but arguably creating actual bias within his own viewers.

Now again, I don't think that Bob should suddenly decide to self censor and certainly not in anyway make him not review certain releases, that's ludicrous. Just to consider that in this hyper interactive media age; what one says is going to have a knockdown effect in some way or another.

I don't think a variation of "I'm not biased at all, you're just biased against me" doesn't really help things.

dennett316 said...

He heavily emphasises plot and story contrivance as one of his major criticisms of this film...is he mad?

The set up for The Avengers film - and pretty much any and all films, TV shows books and games to varying degrees - is loaded with contrivance. As has already been pointed out, the Raimi Spider-man titles are guilty of this.

This is just one of those areas where you've got to suspend your disbelief, and I believe that Bob has done that numerous times for movies he didn't have a grudge against.

I'm not saying he's not allowed to dislike a film, I just think he needs to be more honest when it's clear that he was unwilling to give this film a chance and set about building a case out of nitpicks when he couldn't find enough material to justify the anger in his voice throughout this evisceration disguised as a review.

I actually thought he was going to pull a "just kidding" after about a minute or so as I simply couldn't believe the tone he was using and the emotion in his voice that caused his voice to waver as if close to tears.

We all have our biases...Bob's clouded his judgement on this one I feel and it messed with his critical sensibilities.

Ralphael said...

Hey Bob, since people are giving you alot of shit about your review, I just wanted to say this was the most enjoyable movie review to date in my opinion. You hit the nail in the head so many times during the video I was grinning toward the entire review.


Popcorn Dave said...

Lord Slithor: Best of luck, but if you're serious, don't "apply" to be a film reviewer. Just write a review, and send it in. That's really the only way to get anywhere in this market. Yahtzee's article "How to Become a Game Journalist" puts things into perspective; there are simply too many people out there "asking" to be critics.

I doubt the Escapist is looking for a second film critic in the long term (being a gaming website and all), but they may well be interested in a well-written response to Bob's review, since it's a hot topic over there right now (same as "Heavens to Bob" found a pretty big audience). Can't hurt to try, right?

Popcorn Dave said...

Do you know what the absolute WORST thing about this blog post is?

Big Picture is on at it's regularly-scheduled time for "Batman Revisited: Part II."

Bob squandered a perfect chance to say "same bat-time, same bat-place" in the style of the Adam West show. What a terrible waste!

Eze said...

My only negative to call Bob out on:

He hates that this is a reboot and that it's probably not going by source material properly in certain areas, and that Uncle Ben's death was not to his liking, and so on......

And yet, he's ok with the fact that X-men: First Class (which did have an ACTUAL comic to go from when it comes to new source material for a reboot) has Mystique as a good guy, has Havok as an original instead of Cyclops, has Magneto crippling Xavier with a shot to the back, as opposed to being in the war, and so on.

You hate this reboot for its inaccuracies, and love the other despite its inaccuracies. Hmmm....

That said, I'm neither here nor there with this. I just get mad when people say it was better than Avengers, when that has a lot going for it.

Oh, and for the whole Lizard/Loki thing, they had reasons to take over the world. Lizard wants to make reptiles dominant. Loki is a demi-god who wants to rule things like a king, especially humans since he's stronger than him. Those are reasons, just crazy ones.....


Blue Highwind said...

I'd say that Moviebob's review is totally wrong, and pretty much everybody else has already said so here. Moviebob comes off in Armond White-levels of crazy here. You actually used the word "Twilight"? Wow. That's going deep. Apparently every storyline focused at all with teenagers is Twilight, incredible.

You can't even give Martin Sheen any credit? You can't give any of the very decent action any credit? You can't give the very heartfelt scene where Spider-Man saves little kid any credit (manipulative maybe, but was still lovely)? And how is Uncle Ben dieing because Spider-Man didn't stop a different robbery situation than the one specific one that occurs in the comics totally ruining his comic arc?

I don't know Mark Webb's motivations in making this movie, but it appears to me that he certainly had a great deal more interest in making a decent movie than the ACTUAL assembly line committee that made last year's Green Lantern.

At worst, Spider-Man is mediocre. Its nowhere near as bad as Moviebob is saying. And what has him so angry here? I have no clue. The story didn't follow the very specific plotpoints he desperately needs from the comics. Its petty. Or maybe he's drumming up pageviews by being obnoxious.

I mean, JESUS, you compared this to "TWILIGHT". That's punching at the balls. And even if you didn't enjoy this movie, it wasn't nearly that bad.

Anonymous said...

Okay, you know what happened? Bob gave The Amazing Spider-man a 'nerd' review. And not the Neil Degrasse Tyson or Doc Brown kind of nerd. The Superboy Prime type of nerd.

Anonymous said...

I loved this review. It was hilarious. That is all.

Gordy said...

Have to completely agree with Chris Cesarano and his "JUST SO HAPPENS" list. There's countless movies with coincidence-laden plotting but you conveniently decide to single out this one? I have a lot of respect for you and your work, Bob, but you really do seem biased here. No offence intended; I'm just calling it like I see it.

There have been certain movies in the past that from the offset you've seemed absolutely determined to dislike or outright hate ('Star Trek' reboot, 'Pirates 4' being the obvious examples) and you'll dredge up some - my opinion, obviously - very petty reasons to justify said hatred.

I mean, you spent an entire blog post tearing into every apparent plot hole in 'Pirates 4' but, to my knowledge, conveniently overlooked the gaping plot hole (brilliantly highlighted by the 'How It Should Have Ended' gang on youtube) at the end of the otherwise terrific Captain America movie.

Sorry mate but when you do things like that then you're pretty much asking for accusations of bias.

Anyway, not out to offend you or rile you up. Like I said, just calling it like I see it. Keep up the otherwise very good work!

Apologies to the more inflammatory posters on here, by the way. I'm a boring, diplomatic bastard. ;)

Gordy said...

Oh, and for the record, I'm genuinely a bit gutted at the lack of J. Jonah Jameson in the movie. He's easily my favourite member of the Spidey support cast and I thought J.K. Simmons was perfect in the role.

A little part of me was genuinely hoping they might carry him over to this rebooted franchise the same way they kept Judi Dench for 'Casino Royale'.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I'm surprised Bob wasn't even MORE angry and critical towards his movie. Considering how much he's despised this movie's very existence, I expected him to be more like this towards the movie...

This movie is crap, pure, uncut, unadulterated, unnecessary, undeserving of existence, unwatchable, mind-degrading, franchise-shaming, career-destroying (shows a picture of Andrew Garfield) CRAP. If you see this movie, you're one of the reasons why the United States is so stupid, if you like this movie, you're THE reason the United States is so stupid. Do NOT give this movie your money, do NOT let it succeed. All it deserves is to completely DIE at the box-office, and fade off into obscurity where it belongs.

Yeah, basically, I expected Bob to be something more like that.

Anonymous said...

Bob really needs to pull that hair out of his ass he has on this, it really stopped being funny a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

Okay, please nobody get all butt-hurt at me for saying this, but I hated the Raimi movies. It's just my opinion, not a personal attack on your values. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to put this out there. That being said, while this movie handled his origin a little more believably, Spider-Man 1 did it closer to the comics, and I like that. However, I'm fine with changing an origin story for the sake of storyline (like TDKR's Bane being Arabic/British instead of Caribbian) as long as they keep it recognisably similar to the original. Once they start shit like giving one character another's origin (Batman Returns's Penguin having Killer Croc's backstory), that's when I get pissed. However, other than a book-faithful origin, I found nothing in the Raimi trilogy that I liked. The story focused more on the Peter/MJ/Harry drama than the actual superhero stuff, which is what the target audience (at the time, little boys) went to see. They made Peter too pathetic and whiny, Toby's eyes made him look high ALL! THE! TIME!, and the acting was corny at best. I hated that they made Doc Ock such a sympathetic character. He's supposed to be a bad guy, not some angsty dude with possessed arms. And lets all be honest with ourselves. Spider-Man 3 was shit even for Raimi. Now I can't read a Venom comic without thinking of ERIK FUCKIN FORMAN!!!!! The only part I found even remotely enjoyable in these movies was JJJ cussing out Peter, and even that got on my nerves after the first movie. Now, on to this movie. I liked it, and I'm not that huge of a Spidey fan. I prefer his villains over him. The only reason I went to see this was for the Lizard. I ended up loving the movie. Ben was funny, they handled the physical toll of superhero life realistically, and they kept Peter in High school. Teenage Spidey is the best Spidey in my opinion. I also love that they COMPLETELY left Harry and MJ out. If I remember correctly, he didn't meet either of them in the comics until he started college. The Lizard being smart and British was pretty badass, and at least his story was sympathetic in the comics, too (lookin' at you, Otto). All in all, one of the best movies I've seen in a while.