-pulls up chair and gets a bucket of popcorn-This is going to be an interesting comments section
This is really starting to look like an unhealthy obsession for you man.
I went back and watched your review on Tuesday and I think this works better as a review and the one from Tuesday is a better opinion piece then review. I am not sure if its the audio or maybe not the talk about how Sony made this by accountant. If you mentioned the action sequences or the secondary characters I would definitely consider this a better review.Just my 2cents.
Well, you did a much better job here of explaining yourself, Bob, than you did in your initial review. Had you used the same kind of measured, intelligent analysis there that you did here, my respect for you wouldn't have dropped several notches. That having been said...I still have to disagree with you on this movie. And I'll just respond point by point...1) There's not much to the Lizard to begin with. Connors lost his arm, wants to regrow it using a serum based on the properties of lizards, turns into a man-lizard thing instead, and for some reason starts feeling a kinship with reptiles and decides he wants to turn everyone else into lizards. That's how he was portrayed in his initial appearances and in the 1960's cartoon. His movie depiction isn't too far removed from that, and in my opinion, that makes it a pretty faithful interpretation.There's another scene also where Connors is having an argument with himself (sort of line the one Osborn had in the first Raimi films). The idea is that his transformation into the Lizard has left him with a dual personality, and his human personality is fighting with the Lizard one. The way it was staged and edited makes it confusing, and since you don't see any other scenes like that in the movie, it's probably understandable to want to write it off. But that's the impression I was left with. Conners to me was always a good man, but the Lizard persona brought out the worst in him.2) I never got the impression that this movie was trying to deliberately ape Batman Begins other than maybe teasing the big bad (the Joker/Green Goblin) for the inevitable sequel. None of the similarities seemed that overt to me at least. I personally looked at it as Marc Webb basically trying a new spin on the original story which, let's face it, has been told so much it's pretty boring. So I didn't mind if he went in and changed things up a bit. In fact, I felt the way Uncle Ben's death in this movie was handled had WAY more emotional impact than in any version of Spider-Man's origin that I had seen to date. To sum up, for me any similarities that it may have had to Batman Begins were purely coincidental.
3) I didn't see Garfield's Peter Parker as an Edward Cullen ripoff. If Cullen was a shy, stammering, awkward young man, then I'd agree with you. But I saw Twilight (much to my embarrassment), and Robert Pattinson really did not portray him that way. The only thing they had in common was maybe the hairstyle. But that's just because...well, that style just happens to be popular with teenaged boys now.And as has been pointed out by others in The Escapist comments, there really ARE nerds that look and act like Garfield's Peter Parker. Nerds don't fit into a neat little pre-defined stereotype, no matter how much many want them to. For example, I'm a major geek into Sci-Fi, comics, animation and toys. I'm also a major headbanger and I work out (I swim and lift weights). And I'm also a bit of a slacker too.Garfield's Peter Parker is still an outsider. If not in his outward appearance, it's still in his mannerisms. Like I said before, he's clearly shy and awkward. And while he does stand up to bullies like Flash Thompson, it doesn't stop him from getting his ass kicked. And his snarky attitude obviously is a defensive mechanism that came from being abandoned by his parents at a young age. So while, yes, he had all those traits there from the beginning, it wasn't until he got bitten by that spider and became Spider-Man that he was in a position to really take full advantage of them. In fact, it has even been suggested, that the comic book Peter Parker had always been like this as well, but just never felt confident in outwardly expressing himself that way for much the same reasons. Either way, the way the movie presented it made sense to me. So have Peter go from a wallflower to a wiseass in the space of one or two scenes would have been jarring. At least this way, showing Peter was somewhat like this early on, helps his behavior as Spider-Man make sense and feel natural."Miss me yet?" No. Not at all. I never liked Maguire as Peter Parker and hope he never comes back.
Bob -Savages? I have been looking forward to your review of this for a while now, as I am inclined to see it JUST because it's an Oliver Stone. Instead, we get you bile-spewing all over Sony's stillborn afterbirth of Spidey - again.I wasn't going to see Amazing unless it was... amazing... and not just a sad contract extension strategy. Can we move on?
Also, my guess as to who it was that visited Connors in that cell? My money's on Adrian Toomes, AKA the Vulture. Seeing as how he was at one point going to be in the projected fourth Spider-Man film before Raimi got the axe, and that he has yet to have hi big screen debut, that's what makes the most sense to me.
Regardless of his bias, this movie was still terrible and I find baffling anyone thinks this movie is better than Raimi's Spider-Man 1 and 2.Plus, Bob hit it on the head about the character of Peter Parker. The Amazing Spider-Man's Peter Parker is so unlikeable and I just thought about how I wanted to punch him even though he is a character in a movie. Tobey was a perfect Peter Parker. Couldn't he have been a better Spider-Man? Yeah, but the best parts of the Raimi's films were watching Peter go through the motions of crappy life. Watching him handle two jobs, one of which he is delivery boy and the other he works for a terrible boss that hates his alter ego, giving up his love and many other things for the sake of a greater responsibility that was given to him by accident, and even the little scenes where he drops his stuff and the people passing by keep smacking him book bogs or when he leaves a janitor's closet and has to hold up the brooms as they fall out. They might seem silly and unimportant but they really help make the character look more human and lovable.Also, I'm sure they chose Tobey because they thought he would be perfect for the role and not because he would look good on a poster on some teenage girl's wall like Garfield.
So, on the subject of the "STUPIDEST SCENE EVER IN A SPIDERMAN MOVIE..."Without spoiling it (because it is too hilariously face-palming to spoil the surprise) I'd like to make a guess at where the hell it came from, since it seems to me to be another element cropped from other films.Specifically, it's an over-the-top swipe from the cheesiest scenes of the Sam Raimi films: everyday New Yorkers band together to help Spidey fight the villian. I understood why those were in the Raimi films. They were there for the same reason all the flags were - to thematically New Yorkers coming together in reaction to 9/11.Here, it's an absolutely ridiculous swipe of those scenes without the background context. No symbolism, just "Hey... the old films did it..."
@Lord Slithor:I never got the impression that this movie was trying to deliberately ape Batman Begins other than maybe teasing the big bad (the Joker/Green Goblin) for the inevitable sequel.But that's what aping Batman Begins means. 1st movie is the origin story/minor villain(s) no one really knows, then sequel hook that the big bad everybody's heard of will be in the 2nd movie. Everyone wants that Dark Knight success to rub off. Sherlock Holmes did it, Green Lantern did it, it even sounds like Star Trek is trying to do it. I'll be really surprised if Man of Steel doesn't do it. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they made a biopic of George Washington where the whole movie was just him growing up, chopping down a cherry tree, his father giving him sage advice on his deathbed (because all American heroes need their relationship with their father explained whether it's relevant or not), and fighting during the French and Indian War, and then film ends with a teaser: "the Redcoats are coming!"
@ Anonymous- I thought Raimi overdid it with the Parker scenes in his movies. They came off more as broad slapstick to me, and only served to make him look like a moper and a whiner. Okay, we get it, Peter Parker is a klutz. Can we move on, please?@ Hikeryote- My fiancee and I had zero problems with the crane scene. If anything, we felt it was BETTER than the similar scenes in Spider-Mans 1 and 2. Those scenes, as you said, were rooted in post-9/11 symbolism, which even then felt forced and out of place, not to mention coming off as really sappy and cheesy, in addition to making the movies horribly dated now.By comparison, the crane scene in this movie, while certainly a bit hokey, didn't stick out like a sore thumb anywhere near as much.
Nope, don't miss dancing Peter Parker from Spider-Man 3 yet AT ALL. For starters as stupid as it was, it wasn't the only nor the biggest problem with Spider-Man 3. Secondly, yes I got what Raimi was going for, you guys can explain the thinking behind it all you want...it didn't work. It was still cringe worthy and not in the way it was intended to be.I still disagree with Bob that Amazing Spider-Man is a terrible movie...it just baffles me that people think it's that bad. It has some problems that really don't do much but keep from being great. The amount of vile hate for this film for a film that is average in quality astounds me.
@ Joe-And this is bad, how?Personally, I kind of like this trend of saving the really big villains for the next movie, rather than trying to shoehorn them into the origin story. The first movies have enough to deal with in just setting up the characters and the situations. And while there should be some antagonist present to provide conflict, having it be a big one would just overload the movie, as you're also trying to give him enough space without jeopardizing the main setup. This is the problem the first Batman movie had, as they had to balance both Batman and the Joker, and they pretty much blew their wad as a result.By comparison, with Batman Begins, it was wiser for them to just have the first movie be all about the origin and using a second-string or less-complex villain (Ra's Al-Ghul and/or the Scarecrow) to provide conflict. That way in the second movie, since all the setup is dispensed with, you can have it be all about the conflict between the hero and his biggest nemsis. And I think that's the big reason why TDK worked so well. So if this is the trend now, I'd say it's a pretty good one to follow.
@lord Slithor - I did say I wouldn't spoil it... but okay, the crane scene. It makes no goddamn sense in any universe, fictional or otherwise. In the previous films, the New York team-up scenes happened spontaneously - average Joes and Janes on the scene started fighting back. In ASM, think about what this scene implies is happening behind the scenes, almost instantaneously. One guy calls another guy, who calls a bunch of other guys, and ALL of them agree to help, ALL of them are mere moments away from their cranes. And ALL of their cranes are along the exact route Spidey needs. Do you have any idea how long it takes to climb one of those things? How many regulations exist to keep them from operating at night? Seriously, if those guys were just right there, living in their cranes, I might believe this is possible. Instead, it's a cheap attempt at a "NEW YORK! WOOOOO!" moment that paralyzed me with laughter at just how dumb it was.TL;DR: Movie audiences are quicker to accept the impossible than the improbable, and will nitpick the improbable to death. :D
@ Hikeryote- Just because those scenes happened spontaneously didn't make them any less hokey. In the first movie, I was surprised Green Goblin didn't just fly up to the people on the bridge and vaporize them right then and there. Or that Doc Ock didn't just go and crush the life out of all those people standing between him and Spider-Man. Both villains are known psychotics. So casually killing a bunch of civilians would mean absolutely nothing to them.I assumed all the crane operators just all happened to be working their shifts that night. Overnight construction work is not all that uncommon: I see overnight road work going on all the time on the freeways. And I felt the craneworkers were also working at the time for much the same reason: to be out of the way when the majority of folks go to work in the daytime. So I just took it for granted that's what it was.
By "killed this movie" you don't mean "caused this movie to make very little money", right?I actually was a little curious about Savages, thanks. :)
And we're back.Quoting Bob:"Peter Parker now causes said death by being immature and becomes a vigilante as part of a single-minded quest to avenge that death until a stern talking to about vigilantism sets him on a broader crime fighting path. Sound familiar? It should, it's the plot to Batman Begins."Tell me Bob, when do Bruce Wayne's parents die because Bruce was being "immature"? No talking to makes Parker decide to broaden his scope. The Lizard is what does it and the theme is tied with Uncle Ben's death. Parker feels responsible for his Uncle's death just like he feels responsible for the The Lizard. He even tells Gwen that he feels obligated to do something about The Lizard. Yet you claim otherwise.And the lesson learned is still on the same lines. Parker has his priorities all out of whack. He walks into the store with that emotional baggage from before and for satisfaction lets the thief go. He could've stopped him because by that point he had his superpowers but he chose not to for selfish reasons and his Uncle dies because of it. Thematically that is no different from the comics.Let me also point out how the movie has Uncle Ben actually being a man of his word by trying to stop the thief. I have no idea how anyone can claim this bastardizes the original concept.And again with the Twilight thing? Firstly, if Garfield is considered "hunky" then my word I feel sorry for whatever neighborhood you grew up in that dropped the standards that low. Even if some consider Garfield as such does that mean he cannot be a "nerd"? All nerds are ugly? And how is he not "strictly a nerd"? Cause he rides a skateboard? Are all nerds of the collective mindsets to not wear hoodies? How baseless can these arguments of yours be? Bob's quote:"But other than his awkwardness around this one girl he's not really much of an outsider or even unusual..."Really? Look at Garfield's body language when he is in and out of class. Seem like a popular kid to you? Does Parker have any kind of social life? How about how the popular kid in school, Flash, treats him? First time we see him he throws a basketball right at Parker's head and Parker does nothing back. When Parker tries to do something he gets beat up. And when does Parker have any sort of wise ass remarks before he gets his powers? How is that like Edward Cullen aside from his hairstyle that you can't get over? That hair style is the best argument you have and it's a horrible one.You keep forcing the Twilight connection here by suggesting that this Captain Stacy is a rip off of Bella's father? I questioned your knowledge of the comics before and I do so again. Why?Because this Captain Stacy is BASED ON THE ULTIMATE MARVEL UNIVERSE VERSION OF CAPTAIN STACY.Look up the Captain Stacy in the Ultimate universe. You know what you'll find? A younger police Captain than the one in the original Marvel universe who works directly on field (meaning firing guns if he has to) and does not like Spider-Man. And that was published BEFORE Twilight. In fact I could have sworn that in one of the comment sections this was pointed out to you before. If so then you ignoring that fact and going on ahead with your contrived bashing of this film shows again how damn immature and unprofessional you are in regards to this.The fact that you even said that Parker in this movie isn't a science nerd towards the end despite the fact that this movie sets up that fact more so than the Raimi films to me says how stubborn you are to fit this narrative you had in your head since the moment Spider-Man 4 was cancelled.
While I haven't seen the movie (And probably won't) and don't share Bob's contempt of it. I do understand where he is coming from.A. How many times do we need to go over the "Peter Parker gets bitten by a spider and learns how to use his abilities". This ground has been covered so thoroughly that Superman and Batman laugh at it.B. Bob doesn't hate the Spiderman character or franchise. He (I get/feel) is probably more angry at Sony. This feels like a desparation move by Sony to hold onto a franchise that we all would love to see Marvel have back. I would love to see Marvel's interpretation of the Spiderman universe. Especially now that the Avengers have established the playing field.
OT: James, people still hate you!
Bob, please, if you grant me the power I will show up hourly and erase all of James messages from this point forward. I will not abuse or use this power in any capacity other than to remove the plague from your blog.
Bob, a question:You said that we shouldn't see this movie, even though you say you suspect we probably have, because "it's the big movie right now". You then say that, even though you saw it because it's your job to review movies, you probably would have seen it anyway, presumably because you're a Spidey fan and would see anything Spidey-related because you're a fan of this recognizable product.What does this say about us as moviegoers? That a studio can release a movie, promote it, and even if it looks terrible and receives bad reviews, we're all expected to pay to see it anyway?It saddens me whenever friends of mine go to see a movie, even though they think it looks bad and is a sequel to a movie they know they hate (you probably know what franchise I'm referring to). It's brainless zombie/sheep behavior, and it plays right into the hands of people who would rather make a big, profitable movie than make one the audience would actually like. If people want to see a movie because they enjoy watching something so bad and cheesy that it's fun for them, that makes total sense, but I've gotten the impression people are increasingly going to movie even though they are expecting not to like them, just because that's what "everyone" is expected to do this week, or at least until the next big movie comes out.P.S. I'm not innocent of this behavior (I saw AotC twice and RotS once despite the fact that I should have known better), but I gave that up years ago, and have been avoiding these kinds of summer "spectacle" movies ever since.
Honestly, I don't buy the Twilight comparison, which THANK GOD, Moviebob explained finally, because previously he sounded like a lunatic raving and pointing to whatever bad thing he could think of. Andrew Garfield in this movie have been cast partially to appeal to girls (it explains the hair), but I don't think he was designed single-handedly as s sex symbol. As Bob pointed out, he can't possibly be a one-dimensional sex symbol because he's the main character of the movie - every single scene of this movie either features Spidey or Lizard, there are only two POVs in this whole thing. Now, Moviebob seems to not like Spidey because he's already heroic at the start, that he's more than just a pathetic nerd, that he can be a skater too, whatever. I thought Peter's worst crime was ignoring that cute Asian girl who seemed to have a thing for him. Yeah, Peter Parker isn't really an outsider in this movie, because he's a selfish teenager and every teenager thinks they're at the same ignored by the whole world and THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE UNIVERSE. I thought Peter worked well as a teenage character. Hopefully his character will grow into something more mature in later movies, but who knows?And by the way, I guess we've finally moved somewhere in our movies when finally we can have both male and female sex symbols in a movie. I guess Bob thinks Andrew Garfield is too hot to be Peter Parker, whatever.Now, the other big boogie man for Moviebob is comparisons with Batman, which I don't think this movie earned in any way. Peter's growth to crime fighter in no way follows Batman's, not even close. Yeah, they made Peter's parents relevant to the plot. What exactly is that relevance, what were they doing? That's for the sequel to decide, if you're not leaving questions open then sequels are pretty pointless. For some reason the Chris Nolan Batman movies have been a massive boggieman in filmmaking for Bob, which is odd since just four years ago he was raging that the Academy Awards ignored The Dark Knight. Very little about this movie felt Nolanesque to me, except perhaps that Spider-Man's fights are slightly more realistic in that he seems to take real damage in his fights. Moviebob is furious over how Uncle Ben died, even though it seems to teach Spider-Man the same lesson: he let a crook go for selfish reasons and because it he got his father figure killed. (Nothing of the kind has ever happened in any Batman story, by the way, I don't know why the word "Batman" was even brought up.)Now as for the Lizard, Moviebob seems hung up on minor details. Like how he goes totally crazy after turning into a Lizard, kinda like, you know, a COMIC BOOK VILLAIN. Doctor Octopus seemed pretty well adjusted until his arms started talking to him. There was nothing about this character's plotline that felt cut up or scizzored like Moviebob accuses it of being. Rather it seems like they were just keeping some things secret for the sequel.A sequel that is going to happen. And a sequel I want to see.
I predict that Bob will see this movie again a few years from now and realize it's fine. The crane scene is unforgivably stupid, but so are large sections of the Raimi films (does no one else remember how stupid the Green Goblin looked, or how terrible Franco's acting was?). This Spider-Man had far more creative fight choreography, a villain who actually seemed like a real threat (unlike the horrible Doc Ock "I will not die a MONSTERRRR..")and looked cool, a love story that seemed to portray real human beings, and a Peter Parker who actually really was a pretty cool guy *before* he got powers. In fact, this is where Bob and I part ways; the idea that Parker would have gone through life as a useless beta-male waste of space unless he got bitten by a super-spider sends the message that Without Random Unearned Power, Life is Worthless. What kind of hero is that? A much better idea is that Peter is a good guy who believes in doing the right thing, so when he has the opportunity to do more, he *chooses* to become a hero. That makes the internal conflict more relatable - Peter is trying to figure out what the right thing to do *is*, which is the the whole underlying theme of Spider-Man. The loss of the stupid wrestling subplot is a FANTASTIC decision on the part of this film. The Twilight connection, as has been said before, really just comes down to the hair; there's nothing about Peter/Gwen that reminded me of Edward/Bella, and thank goodness. Bob had a mad on for this film, he got his licks in, and I hope he will chill out now.
HAHAHA MISS ME YET!!! great review
@Most recent AnonymousI doubt that. At worst we'll get a another video/article about how this film represented the worst aspects of comic book adaptations from this time period; at best we'll get a snippy tweet along the lines "Saw ASM again, still sucks."Bob will sooner look upon Green Lantern with altered perspective than the film he sees only as a greedy abomination that both didn't involve a geek director icon and did a supposed disservice to a character he loves. Doubly so now that the film has defenders, and he can actually get in an debate and/or give condescending opinions about it.(Indcidentally, regarding missing Tobey Maguire, not in the slightest)
It's just one of those things... He has been making a stink about this movie years before it even began being filmed, he HAS to stick to it now. I feel like he talked himself into a corner and now he has to stick to his guns regardless of what he REALLY thinks because people would call him out on this sooo fast. He has to make a stand because he has been bitching and moaning about this for so long that it would totally destroy any credit he has if he made a HUGE stink over this just to come back and say, "it was actually pretty awesome"... way to stubborn and proud to admit ANYTHING like that. Also, he has been ready to hate this movie for so long, no matter what, that the movie could have done ANYTHING, and it wouldn't have been good enough. Once you have your mind made up about something like this, that far ahead of time, no amount of fan service, good story development or special effects are gonna change his mind. Can't teach an old dog new tricks. Stubborn is stubborn.
@Anonymous #28That was way, WAY over the line. Don't repeat it.@Amazingly DissapointedIn "Batman Begins," the big new (and, IMO, smart) change to the origin-story is that Bruce feels personally responsible for his parents' deaths because the only reason they ran into Joe Chill was because Bruce got frightened by the show they were watching and had to be taken outside.
@Bob A child being afraid of bats isn't a case of being immature.
@Bob: The anon was right, though; you ARE a very stubborn, biased person.
@James: You should know that that was NOT the anon he was talking about. He deleted the anon he was referring to. Actually, the anon he deleted was asking that you, James, kill yourself (I am not joking). Bob thought that was out of line (rightfully so). So maybe, James, you could stop being an ass.
@Anon... oh, wow, didn't know that. I apologize.
Bob, I don't want to attack you again, but when you say shit like "The world is OVERFLOWING with excess-humans we could easily do without" on twitter, it doesn't matter what the motivation is; you come off as arrogant scum.
I know I'm gonna sound like "that guy", but you must have watched a different movie. Every point you brought up about what you disliked about the movie was something I either didn't notice or flat-out didn't exist in the movie. I thought it was a good film, and I think it did a better job with Peter Parker than the Sam Raimi films. You're still gonna hate it for whatever reasons you've assembled, but I feel the need to bring that up.
As another huge Spider-Man fan, I was absolutely prepared to hate this movie because it was an obvious attempt to hold onto the franchise and it strikes me as odd to focus on the Parker parents. Just saw the movie today and was quite surprised with how much it did not suck. MovieBob, I'm not going to say that you painted yourself into a corner with your pre-conceived contempt for the film, but even my wife, who was not familiar with your complaints leading up to the film, could tell that there was a certain bias present in how you were reviewing the film.As far as Spider-Man adaptations go, this one was not bad. It's not as great as the 90's cartoon, but it's nowhere near as bad as the 70's live-action show. It was fun, it hit the right beats, and it gave me a Spidey who mouths off (with a reason to mouth off, no less). I actually enjoyed the tweak to Uncle Ben's death, far separated from the wrestling thing that just doesn't work anymore, and web shooters were fine. They were at least there! The Lizard seemed to me to be acting more like his current incarnation, but I was disappointed he was lacking a family. But the truth is I couldn't find enough to complain about with this film.I have to be honest, I've never seen Twilight and lack the appropriate contempt for things like it. From what I understand, this is not like that. Peter isn't basically stalking Gwen, and she's not bland character.In fact, she's one of the things I liked least about the movie. For a high school student, she was just too mature and, as you pointed out, involved. I'm pretty sure Oscorp could afford interns from college. But I have to appreciate that they went out of their way to make sure that Gwen wasn't quite as weak as Mary Jane was in the Raimi films. I can forgive them for that...for now.Just like I'll forgive you, MovieBob, for flying off the handle about a movie like this. I honestly think you put too much energy into being spiteful toward this movie. You didn't like it. OK, that's cool. I'm sure people enjoy when you go off the handle because you didn't enjoy a movie, but I think you come across more like one of those insecure internet nerds (the type who need to convince themselves of how smart they are because they don't like something or another) when you spend more than one episode on it. If you can't get it all out in one episode, it's probably not worth it.Anyway, I generally agree with your opinions and will obviously keep watching your reviews. Doing something like this again will definitely make me reconsider it, especially since I already sat through a month of Green Lantern jabs last year that momentarily made me think that you were no better than some random YouTube yokel. You are great when you review movies or talk about the history of franchises (or the craziness of some old films), but you lose something when you feel like you need to repeatedly attack films or go out of your way to try to validate your opinion.I get it. You like some things and you don't like other things. Like everyone else on the internet, you spend more time talking about the things you hate than the things you like. If you want filmmakers to strive to make exemplary content, it's only fair for me to want you to provide exemplary web content. Cut the crap. Spend more time pushing people toward what you think is quality entertainment and less time trying to qualify your negative opinions.
So I saw the movie just a while ago and since this is the least intimidating comment section on the subject so I'll put it here. Not that anyone would be interested since your all having your own discussion. But I'm to lazy to start an actual blog and I still don't trust twitter.I thought it was ok. Probably could of gone without the Origin but after that everything seems alright. Notes:- The steel crane line-up scene is stupid. But it's the good kind of campy, fun stupid that I'd been waiting for. It only works because of the scene with the kid in the car which looks a lot better without the trailer music. But yea the steel cranes, the American flag in the background, it was just fun.- Emma Stone, Martin Sheen and Denis Leary are great and really keep the movie afloat. Any scene with them in it is a winner.- That skateboard scene in the trailer finally makes sense in the context of the film. - Something was off about The Lizard but I can't put my finger on it. It might be the face. Plus he has a weird inner monologue at one point that seemed kind of forced.- There's a sequel in the making right. To be honest I'm not really pumped for it. Even with the hooks and mid credit stinger. I wasn't really that interested in the story Peter's parents- I can't remember the last time I saw anything Spiderman related but has Flash always been this violent? I know he's a jerk but still that first scene with him caught me off guard.- I haven't said anything about Andrew Garfield have I. He's really good in the movie. The weird thing is that Peter Parker kind of gets out shined by most every other character.- Once I noticed how much of the film takes place at night. It kind of started to bug me.- Uncle Ben's death follows the same chain of events. I guess the only difference is the scale.- The web slinging was really great, miss the organic shooters but still good.- How do they rank with the Raimi Films. They're all good. I still think the strongest aspect of the first three were the villains. And that's kind of all I have to say about the movie. Can't muster the strength to get mad at it or defend it. * shrugs shoulders*
@ multimediacultureBravo, that's probably the most reasonable post I've read in a while. Though I don't see why you need to forgive him.
Bob, I hear everything you're saying and I understand. However, I still LIKE the movie. It's just not as bad as Spider Man 3. It's not the PERFECT Spidey movie by any means but this was still a fun popcorn flick.TILL NEXT TIME!
Should have just reviewed Savages instead. That would have been less a waste of time for everyone, and possibly influenced people to see that instead of Spider-man.
For what it's worth, this is indeed a much better video than the one you made on Tuesday. I still don't think the Twilight comparison is fair (besides the hair and a few superficial details, Peter and Edward are nothing alike), but I do agree that Peter Parker's characterisation is weak and his arc is less interesting than it was in Raimi's first film.I think Garfield's acting helps a lot here, though. His teenage mannerisms tied the disparate threads of his character together, at least for me.
So Bob...long time watcher here, even after you've disappointed me time and again in ALL your videos, now having something to actually ask you: you could dedicate 2 (TWO) episodes of your film critique series to a film you have been against from its very inception...but you couldn't have made a damn episode for Beasts of the Southern Wild? Yeah, yeah, Intermission...but we all know people will more likely watch the video than read your commentaries (especially as they're often not as interesting...I wonder why).So, in the interest of pure, unabashed curiosity: why did you continue bashing this film - where I'll go with the general reviewer consensus this time -, instead of actually promoting something that's unique and interesting, even by your own mismatched and twisted standards? It just boggles the mind how you can preach about corporations and movies made by accountants, and you can't bother to actually promote something that deserves every bit of promotion.
Anonymous: The sad fact is, the Escapist's income is dependent on page hits and ad views. A Beasts of the Southern Wild video would be nice, but it's Spider-Man rants that really bring in the traffic.
Bob;I love how the greater internet expects you to be objective and impartial in a carrer field where being opinionated is taken as a job requirment, and everything you do or say is subjective. Chin up old chap.
I haven't watched this video or read your latest 'Intermission' yet because, well, I'm afraid your first video has made me want to go see the movie and judge it for myself. I hate the circumstances surrounding its creation too but I prefer to judge a film on the quality of the finished product and, while I'm not expecting it to be anything resembling brilliant, I'm just not convinced it's as awful as you've stated. If it makes you feel any better I'll be going on Wednesday with my brother. I dunno if you're familiar with the "Orange Wednesdays" deal we have over here but basically, Sony won't be getting a penny from me.
Man, with how much Bob has been bitching about Spider Man you would think it beat him up in high school or something.
Well, the "no pennies for Sony" plan fell through (my brother booked D-Box tickets - that was... different) but that's fine as the film really wasn't as bad as I expected. Some parts I liked, some not so much, some parts I preferred compared to the first Raimi movie.That said, while watching I felt I could understand to some degree why you disliked it so much. Don't see any need to defend the movie or elaborate on why I enjoyed it though. I'm just going to regard this is 'Ultimate Spider-Man The Movie' and get on with my life. :)
Post a Comment