Saturday, July 14, 2012

Last Word on "Spider-Man"

There's no real point in complaining about people trolling every single post/review/article I put up that even alludes to the movie that happens to be THE big entertainment news story of the moment (seriously, people; I am "obsessed" with "The Amazing Spider-Man" in the same way that The Weather Channel was "obsessed" with Hurricane Katrina - it's kind of the only thing going on at the moment, especially since there's been no "tsunami" out of SDCC yet) since this is my job... but at this point I've had enough. Especially since The Internet ran out of new conspiracy-theories and sinister-motivations to ascribe to my not liking a movie as much as you did within the first few hours.

So I'm just gonna take one more pass through the most common bullet-points on this nonsense and then that's it from me until something newsworthy (re: sequel, casting/re-casting, who's-replacing-Mark-Webb, etc) happens...

1. If there's one thing that I just cannot stand about internet movie discussion it's that people seem incapable of grasping that not everything can be expressed as a hard-equation. Opinion and criticism aren't 1 + 1 = 2 constants. To wit: It is not "hypocrisy" or a "double-standard" to like "X-Men: First Class" but dislike some other reboot, because reboot doesn't ALWAYS equal "bad." BAD equals bad. See also: Elements that work perfectly well in one movie CAN sometimes be a mistake in another movie - which is why there is no point in excavating old reviews of this or that critic to "a-ha!" them about saying ______ was fun in THIS movie when they'd said the same ______ was bad in a previous one.

2. No, I didn't mark the movie "down" because of the business stuff behind the reboot decision. I made note of it because, from my perspective, said decisions/processes were very plausible explanations for many of the bigger problems with the film. Remember a few years back when there was a huge writer's strike and you had all these blockbusters coming out with under-cooked scripts as a result? Same basic thing.

3. I "get" that there's a younger generation of movie-people for whom Sam Raimi has only ever been "the guy who made "Spider-Man" and also some horror movies before that;" (which is tragic, btw) so I "get" that that's where some of the split on these two series is coming from - at the time, Raimi's "Spider-Man" was the biggest thing that had ever happened to film geekdom: Hiring a guy who was perennially on the "movie nerd wish-list" for every genre property but would NEVER actually land one was a neutron-bomb for us; which is pretty-much why people might as well be speaking Klingon when they tell me the original films were "bad" because of the slapstick, the crazy-zooms, the "campy-evil" Goblin, the retro-horror tone-shifts, various cameos by actors and cars, Maguire playing (personality-wise) a straight-up lift of 60s Peter Parker... I mean, that's the stuff we showed up hoping for at the time! And before anyone asks, yes, if Mark Webb HAD a singular/auteurist style of his own (he doesn't appear to, which is not necessarily a negative) I'd have liked to see him bring it.

4. Believe it or not, I choose the stuff I review mainly based on whatever is most relevant/newsworthy at the time; and form my opinions based on... well, my opinions; as opposed to carrying out some kind of grand, five-steps-ahead supervillain conspiracy to affect production decisions and manipulate the results of theoretical future movies. To be more specific; no, I am not under the illusions of carrying out a Machiavellian plot to "make" this movie fail so Spider-Man can possibly turn up in "Avengers 3" ten years from now.

5. I have no opinion about the Fantastic Four reboot right now because all anyone knows is that the director of "Chronicle" is doing it, which is a good start. Unlike Spider-Man, this reboot makes a certain amount of sense (first two movies were terrible and the second one was a huge flop) apart from the rights-issues stuff, and it doesn't involve an irritating web of studio manhandling and backstabbing; so right now it's kind of a neutral prospect as far as I'm concerned.


Shamus Young said...

Just a general show of support. Like I said at our PAX panel: You do great work and and I always look forward to your review, even when I disagree or don't care about the movie.

Also, your current BP Batman series is great stuff and I plan to watch it with my kids once you complete the series.

TheDVDGrouch said...

Great article Bob hopefully this can be the last word on ASM.

Honestly the reboot news I was the most interested/ disappointed in was David Slade leaving the new Daredevil project.

Razmere said...

Hey Bob, it's cool.

I liked the movie.

You didn't like the movie.

I don't hold anything against you.

If I ever have the pleasure to meet you in person, I'll give ya a big ol HIGH FIVE.


Sylocat said...

Lord Slithor thinks that you somehow coerced The Escapist into disregarding his unsolicited job application to them, and that's the only reason he wasn't hired to provide a "counterpoint" to you.

Jeffery said...

Film reviews are subjective; personal bias always plays a role in how a film works for you (either pro or negative).

You can go into a film expecting it to be awful and come out happy (Three Stooges for me) or go into a movie expecting it to be incredible and leave kinda disappointed despite it being far superior to similar works (Cabin in the Woods for me).

All of these people who say "Bob went in with X mentality" also went into the movie with their own mentality and expectations and their own bias. That's the point. Bob's opinion is just as valid as their own, and he can defend it well, and that's what's really important.

I think simply stating whether you like a movie or not, is the most boring question in the history of art criticism.

The really important question is WHY? And if the business side of the equation really put you off Spider-man and everything in the movie just cemented that feeling for you? I think that's a 100% valid opinion.

Because art's about communicating, reaching out and sharing something that's hopefully unique to you (and I agree that this Spider-man doesn't have that feel like Raimi's Spider-man) and being able to illicit a reaction from a complete stranger who doesn't know you from atom.

That being said, I actually went into Spider-Man with very low expectations (because of Bob's review and Film Critic Hulk) and found it to be quite surprisingly good. I loved the Godzilla versus Mothra homage that was thrown in with the webbing. I really liked the Lizard, because he acted like the 70s/80s mad scientist comic book Lizard. The sort of fairly obvious reptilian master race commentary on genetic science from that day: "I'm going to turn everybody into giant reptile men... JUST BECAUSE!"

I didn't honestly see the 'gritty realism' and 'Twilight' aspects some people complained about, and I liked the film's way of telling a story about taking responsibility. I do think there was a decent hero's journey going on.

So yeah, I disagree with Bob's review, but I accept it all the same and respect it. He's a great critic and I love his reviews and commentary on geek culture. So, meh? C'est la vie.

Mister Linton said...

Having finally gotten the time to see the movie myself, I can see some of the reasons why you didn't care for this version. (I personally liked it)

A couple points you made in your review that I do disagree on are:

1. CGI on Lizard was bad? Wha? Perhaps you didn't like the asthetic choices made in his design, but the effects were perfectly solid by 2012 standards.

2. Andrew Garfield unbelivable as a nerd/geek/unpopular. My recollections of high school are that by the time you got to 9th-10th grade you were already pigon-holed into whatever role had been ascribed to you early on, and no amount of looking good/ acting cool would ever change that. i.e. if you were viewed as a dork because of your glasses/acne/braces in 7th grade, getting rid of those things won't alter your status until either your classmates start maturing late in senior year, or college.

3. I'm still not clear on what your problem with the death of Uncle Ben is. It seemed staged almost exactly as it always has been (aside from SM3's silly Sandman retcon). So, what gives?

That said, the film had some pacing issues (2nd act DRAGS) and the climax was a bit contrived, as you noted. Overall an improvement in my eyes, but honestly, anyone who prefers the style of the old ones-- you already have 3 films to watch so...

Anonymous said...

While I don't care for the Raimi spiderman, for multiple reasons only some of which you mentioned up ahead, I recognize it accomplishes what it wants to, and many people enjoy it. Whatever not my thing.

I can say that just as well the reboot is equally as not my thing but for different reasons entirely. As well as not liking the Spidy comics that much at all.

I guess Spiderman isn't my type of comic book hero. Oh well, I have Batman, and a host of Marvel ones to placate my comic book hero need, whatever will I do.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

What a disappoint this is. You say you were going to tackle most common bullet-points but only point number 2 qualified as such. Or should I have expected that?

On #2, yes Bob. You did mark this movie down because of the business stuff. You made that EXPLICITLY clear. Here are your quotes that you made before you saw the movie:

"It feels wrong to root against Spider-Man. But I'm not - I'm rooting against Sony. Sony and pointless cash-grab "reboots." Fuck em both."


"Come to me; shitty-looking, unecessaery remake of "Spider-Man"... I want to BASK in your pain."

So who do you think you're fooling?

I told you that this wasn't about you not liking the movie it had to do with your behavior throughout this whole thing. I posted about that here:

When you published your review it was just not convincing. I have made specific responses to your reviews that show you were full of it and were forcing a bad review of the movie with either incorrect claims or contrived complaints. Here they are:



Among the comments I made in the first link there I (as well as Chris Cesarano later on there) pointed out how your complain about the coincidences of the connections of characters in the movie is a flimsy and downright hypocritical complaint on your part. The Marvel Studio movies have coincidences that run through not one but multiple films yet you don't have a problem with them.

Among the points I make in the 2nd link is the contrived claim you make that this Spider-Man film ripped Batman Begin's origin because Peter causes the death of his uncle, "by being immature." Except that Bruce Wayne was never being immature when his parents died. You tried to defend yourself later on to me but as I pointed out, "A child being afraid of bats isn't a case of being immature."

You also made the outlandish claim that Captain Stacy in this movie was ripped from Bella's father in Twilight but the truth is that this movie's Captain Stacy was based on his Ultimate universe version.

On #3, are you really suggesting that those that didn't like Raimi's Spider-Man were not of the right generation or don't know about Raimi? Are you kidding me? I've known Raimi since the 80s. Evil Dead 2 and Army Of Darkness are among my favorites. I just didn't like the tone of his Spider-Man. I wanted a superhero movie that took its world seriously. You on the other hand love cheesy movies. That's just your thing. Stop pretending otherwise.

And on #4, you make me feel like a psychic. I called that out in my last post:

AmazinglyDisappointed said...


And on #5, you make me feel like a psychic. I called that out in my last post:

Anonymous said...

"No, I didn't mark the movie "down" because of the business stuff behind the reboot decision. I made note of it because, from my perspective, said decisions/processes were very plausible explanations for many of the bigger problems with the film."

Yes you did. At the core of it all is this inability for you to admit this one simple obvious truth.

Andrew said...


I disagree with you on quite a few things. And I do believe there have been a few moments here and there where you've said some hypocritical things (but we all do that from time to time), not necessarily related to movies.

But you are still a smart guy, and I respect you for that, and for standing up for yourself in not having to qualify every statement with "in my opinion.

As far as ASM, I haven't seen it. I think it looks alright, nothing like the originals, but decent. I will say that I think it does happen where someone will get a preconception about something because of a poor trailer or the 'business' of moviemaking, and that colors your opinion of the final product. I think it can color ones opinion in a way that might not have been the same if not for that preconception. Did that happen here, maybe, maybe not.

Either way, Bob, keep doing what you do. As they say, don't feed the trolls.

Anonymous said...


Actually you're wrong about point #5. It wasn't Bob's bias of genre films, but of genre filmmakers. As is well understood by any movie geek worth his salt, SP3 became the mess it was due to Sony forcing Raimi to do shit in the movie he didn't want to do. They then effectively forced him out of the franchise in order to do this reboot. His review of the movie was written before the movie had a title based on Sony's treatment of Raimi, not his love of genre fare.

Fallen Angel said...

Well put. I think you've said all you had to say about this movie, and considering all the waaaaaay overblown hate you caught for this, I think you stuck it out pretty well.

Oh, and Internet? Please don't pull this shit again when The Dark Knight Rises comes out, 'kay?

Jeffery said...

Just to defend Bob: Everything that people mention that could bias an opinion (feelings regarding Raimi leaving the franchise/business choices, etc) could also make a reviewer love a movie as well. Film isn't baseball where you hit the ball out of the park and win the World Series. Sometimes you can swing for the fences, go home, have a family and 20 years later everybody realizes you're Babe Ruth. Like I mentioned before with the Stooges, people went in wanting to hate it, and ended up loving it. While other people going in wanted to love it and ended up being disappointed with it. Feelings and emotions are not math and just because you have expectations, doubts or even prejudice against a movie, doesn't guarantee any kind of reaction to that movie. Especially if you're somebody like Bob, who watches and enjoys a ton of different kinds of movies.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

"Actually you're wrong about point #5. It wasn't Bob's bias of genre films, but of genre filmmakers. "

I don't know what you're talking about because my point there had nothing to do with Bob having a bias on genre films. You'd do best to read it again and understand my points because you misread them. I was very clear in my comments.

Jim Bentley said...

You rock man. Big respect from across the pond.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

@ Jeffery If you are bothering to defend Bob against opposition then have the courtesy to read and understand what others have actually wrote as responses to Bob instead of dumbing down the points like some that have tried to defend him before. Bob had his mind set before this film was even shot. So we were not equally biased as Bob was which is what you are incorrectly suggesting. I put up quotes from him proving that and links where I elaborated on the issue.

Marcomax said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Bob, please promise us that you'll be totally silent about this movie for at least five months and make an off-hand, incredibly veiled reference on the Game Overthinker's main plot. AmazinglyDisappointed's obsession amuses us and I don't think he's ever going to let go.

Aiddon said...

It is kind of amazing how Bob attracts TONS of people who throw tantrums at his dislike or even like of something.

Anonymous said...

@Most recent anonymous

About as amusing as Bob's self pity regarding the comments and supposed trolling he's gotten for his talk about this movie.

MerelyAFan said...


The more cynical would say is a case of several tantrums of commenters in response to one of a reviewer.

Michael Harris said...

We know this isn't the last word, and as much as you would like to paint us all as stupid, we are not. You hated this movie before there were any details other than "it exists." I used to get angry at it, but now it is kind of pitiful in a way. You know you are wrong so you have to spend articles defending yourself. You've tried using other critics, you have tried painting your audience as uneducated, and now you have moved on to "it is a huge thing so I have to talk about it." It's not fooling anyone. I'm not upset. I'm glad you are done with it so you can move on and start getting back your credibility and viewers. Just learn your lesson from this one big guy. When you spend your time posting every opinion you have on the internet, it is only a matter of time before such a thing catches up to you. Live. Learn. Move forward.

Anonymous said...

@Michael Harris

Don't completely agree with all of your points, but that last sentiment is dead on, and one I hope Bob heeds.

xaszatm said...

@Michael Harris

I'm sorry, but Bob's wrong? How? Is he wrong that he doesn't like the movie? I didn't know opinions on movies could be wrong. Is he wrong because he wrote articles describing WHY he didn't like the movie? Describing why he does or does not like movies is his job. Is he wrong because he linked to other people that shared his opinions? No, he has linked to Film Critic Hulk several times before in other articles so it should be no surprise he does it here. Plus, conformation of opinion does not make an opinion wrong. Is he wrong because he keeps talking about it? No, it's his blog and he can talk about what he likes. So, how is he wrong?

Anyways, Bob, I didn't like the movie either. I didn't hate it as much as you did but you complaints were similar to my own. I still enjoy the work you do so don't let others discourage you. Hopefully The Dark Knight Rises doesn't cause this same backlash (though it probably will).

Sylocat said...

I am becoming increasingly convinced that AmazinglyDisappointed is just another sockpuppet of James.

Michael Harris said...

Opinions are subjective. Reviews are subjective. I know that. We don't need another "movie reviewers can have opinions" discussion. It is known. He was wrong about how he went about reviewing the movie. From its conception he tore through it and built a narrative about this movie before it was made. We as humans have biases and opinions. The fact that he has an opinion on the movie is not wrong, but pretending that he didn't have it out for this movie from the beginning is wrong, deriding his fans is wrong, saying he doesn't care about what we think and then continually posting articles to the contrary is wrong. I truly don't mind that he doesn't like the movie. I just wish he would learn from this. In an age where you are seen on the internet 24/7 you can't be surprised when those opinions you put out there come back and bite you, and you definitely can't put on a facade of apathy and play the victim card simultaneously. From a debate stand point, these things are contradictory and objectively wrong. Learn. Live. Move forward.

Anonymous said...


"I don't know what you're talking about because my point there had nothing to do with Bob having a bias on genre films."

Quoting directly from your post. Ahem:

"You see Bob is just mad that Sam Raimi couldn't keep making Spider-Man films because Bob loves cheesy movies. That's his thing. Everything should be cheesy in Bob's world. He even wrote an entire article actually suggesting that a Mortal Kombat movie should be purposely cheesy and never take itself seriously."

And don't pull the 'cheesy doesn't equal genre' grammar nazi bullshit. You'll just look like more of an ass. The context makes them equally valid and interchangeable terms.

Sylocat said...

@Michael Harris: I truly don't mind that he doesn't like the movie.

Yeah, right.

Michael Harris said...

@Sylocat I take it that your argument is to paint me disengenuine? That is your perogative. I have said my piece. I don't mind that he didn't like it. I did like it and that is really all that matters when it comes to this sort of thing. I only don't care for the dishonest way in which he went about the review and the way he is handling the fans who disagree with him. I have no problem with having a reasonable discourse about that, but when I say that I don't mind that he gave the film a negative review, that is what I mean. Who are you to say any different? Although if you do have some sort of technopathic telepathy and can read, via a computer, deeper into my thoughts than even I then.....kudos. I concede.

AmazinglyDisappointed said...

Great posts, Michael Harris.


"And don't pull the 'cheesy doesn't equal genre' grammar nazi bullshit. You'll just look like more of an ass. The context makes them equally valid and interchangeable terms."

So can you find me an official listing for "cheesy" as an actual film genre like "action", "adventure", "romance", "sci-fi", etc...?

It's pretty clear what I meant. Your argument is basically "change key words that you wrote with what I want it to say because I swear it's the same thing even though it's really not in any way". That by the way is a god-awful argument.

Anonymous said...


You don't seem to understand how definitions work...

Good luck with that.

Redd the Sock said...

It is sad how many people seem so put off that a self professed internet Z-lister's idffering opinion differes from theirs. People whining for Roger Ebert's vaildation I get, but you? You'd think there weren't 65 other negetive reviews on the film (as per rotten tomatoes) from people with far more clout to be mad at. Just the basic fact that that site exists should tip people off that, since otherwise every film would be either 100% or 0%, people will have differing opinions.

Still, god to get the warm up arguements ready. With the Expendables sequel in a few weeks, your flame shield's going to need a flame shield.

Blue Highwind said...

Here I made my peace with Bob not liking the movie and I think we all need to remember that this movie was never anything to get angry about. Actually, despite how much I disagreed with Moviebob here, I've already mostly forgotten seeing Amazing Spiderman, and it was only two weeks ago. Just not the movie to start a war over.

And really, upon second viewing, I probably won't find very much to enjoy here either.

So thanks Bob and Film Crit Hulk. I liked a movie, and now you made me feel numb to it. I'm a less happy person now. Thanks.

patrick.b.healy said...

Bob, stop trying to tell people why you aren't an asshole on the internet.
You're on the internet.
Everyone will call you an asshole.
Sorry man.

Now, make a blog post about the now announced titles of the upcoming Movies.

Iron Man 3 - May 3, 2013

Thor: The Dark World - November 8, 2013

Captain America: The Winter Soldier - April 4, 2014

Guardians of the Galaxy - August 1, 2014

Steven said...

Bob you hated this movie the moment in was announced you made it perfectly clear back in January 2010

"But... whatever. The net benefit of geek properties now being so entrenched in the popular culture is that likely disasters like this are no longer as devastating to fanboys (well, to this fanboy, anyway) as they are to the careers of the decision-makers. Fourth movie or not, Raimi's films were never going to be the last movies about Spider-Man, and the same will hold true for the Smallville-ized, CW-style turd Sony is now fixing to polish. I'll live to see good movies about Spider-Man again, and so will most of us."

"Ah, well. Rest in peace, good Spider-Man movies. We never really know what we have until it's gone"

That was from your MovieBob: Intermission Spider-Man No More on the escapist.

CJ said...

Grow up Bob.

Andy Warth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andy Warth said...

Good stuff Bob. I thought you were being unnecessarily harsh on the movie, but yeah, after seeing it, I'm ashamed I spent money and time watching it. Movie sucked and most of what you have been saying lately has been spot on. Don't let the vocal haters and trolls drag you down, I myself may not agree with you all the time, but you're still the most consistent and fun nerd critic out there, so keep on, man, there's a lot of us behind you.

Omegalittlebob said...

I didn't hate Spiderman as much as you did, but almost a week after seeing it, it was a really forgettable movie. The movie did kinda work and fit together, the same way a house of cards fits together.

I can also understand why you hated it so much, especially with Uncle Ben's ultra lame death, and Peter never really growing as a character (Or having much of one to begin with). Though I can't lie, my favorite part of the movie was when Capt. Stacy shows up at the end, and said "No, he's not alone!" sadly the rest of the movie was very blah.

What was really fun actually, as soon as I came home from seeing Amazing SM, I popped in my dvd of the original Spiderman, and watched for the first time in probably 2 years. Now I know how important it is for a Spiderman movie to actually have a heart. Also, I still don't find Goblin campiness off setting, I think it actually makes him really creepy, people can be so stupid.

Finally I find it fascinating that my friend at work really loved the film. He's about 19 years old, and he really connected with the new Peter Parker. He said, and I quote "I liked how Peter Parker was more like an actual teenager, and I liked how the movie was darker". And for some reason he makes fun of the fact that Peter was also being emo in the original trilogy, with cheesy crying or something (Kinda wanted to hit him for that.)

I guess the new Peter does connect with the younger generation on some level. But I am still confused as to why he liked it as much as he did. Oh well, I still have faith in humanity after the success of Avengers, and now that we know that we are going to see freaking Rocket Raccon on the big screen in two, seriously who saw that coming?

Saarai'ari said...

I haven't seen ASM yet as I'm more or less saving my time to go see the Dark Knight Rises. But I do honestly think the hate and accusations of bias toward MovieBob is out of hand. Regardless of how Bob approached the film or what his review is guys, it won't ruin the film for you if you go watch it and enjoy it. He didn't like it, you liked it. That's just simply it.

Only interesting thing I can see coming out of this film is that if people get interested in Gwen Stacy and Captain Stacy, the people at Marvel might get interested in shaking things up in the Spider-Man comics and revive the both of them. Don't know if it would be a good thing, but it would without a doubt really surprise fans. Especially igniting new debate amongst fans of who Peter really loves, MJ or Gwen. I mean, it's not the first time they've changed something in the comics to fit in a bit with the films.

Scorpid said...

I've always liked bobs arguments because he doesn't pretend that he has some high and mighty understanding of movie making that he's too good to explain. When he gives his opinion on why a movie is good or bad he'll give brief 101 on what it is he's talking about if he thinks it flys over peoples head. Has he spent alot of time covering Spiderman certainly, but that doesn't indicate a bias just that he has a passion for the movie that failed. For what ever its worth I thought this itteration of Spiderman was hollow and nearly every point he made was one I agree with. Also once the shine wears off peoples eyes they'll eventually come around closer to his opinion on this. I remember when Avatar came out people thought it was going to be the next Star Wars, and I was saying it was nothing original with bland characters and plot, now the most I get out of people is that it looked pretty which I can't argue against.

Gordy said...

Fuck it, I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt over the whole "bias" business, Bob.

I enjoyed the movie enough to not feel like my £5.50 had been wasted but it has lots of flaws and I can understand how someone who can "read" movies on a level I can't entirely relate to would find said problems far more grating, especially when the movie features a character they're clearly very fond of.

Let's all move on, eh? :)

Gordy said...

Oh, one more thing: who else loved Stan Lee's cameo?

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

I've said all I'm gonna say about Amazing Spider-Man.

I just wanted to say that I hope the Fantastic Four becomes a troubled production (much like the new Daredevil looks to be), and the rights revert back to Marvel.

The FF are such a key part to the Marvel Universe that it seems almost criminal to keep them apart from it.

Besides, with all the big ideas and straight-up wackiness Marvel Studios has brought to the big screen, does anyone think they wouldn't give us the Fantastic Four movie we deserve?

Lord Slithor said...

Well, I'm glad to see that you're at least not on some sort of personal crusade to undermine this movies' box office performance, Bob (which BTW came in No. 1 this weekend again). But comparing yourself to JJJ as you did at the end of your initial review could have fooled me.

And I understand where you're coming from vis a vis reboots and making your postion on the FF reboot clear, but it still doesn't justify your bheavior toward TASM before even a single frame was shot. Is it because you just didn't like the director, or weren;t as familiar with is work? I'm guessing if you felt Marc Webb already had a proven track record with superhero movies, like Josh Trank, I'm guessing you probably wouldn't have been as hostile towards it. I'm guessing because you didn't know anything about Webb, you just automatically assume he's a hack. (500) Days of Summer may have been a lightweight RomCom, but it was still well-recieved.

As for TASM itself, this'll be my last word on it as well. Like I have said previously, at the end of the day, I guess, it's all a matter of taste. I didn't like the Raimi movies, which is difficult thing for me to say because I loved the Evil Dead films. But I just didn't think his approach worked for least not for me. And when people say that the Raimi films - especially 2 - are the best ever, like you, I just can't look at them with a straight face.

You want details? Here are the many problems I had with the Raimi films:

- Peter Parker is played too broad and way too whiny. And he's a loser. If they changed his name instead to Charlie Brown, it might have made more sense.
- Badly designed supervillains (i.e. Power Ranger Green Goblin and flasher Doctor Ocotopus)
- Villains not realized properly. Doc Ock and Sandman were NEVER EVER nice guys!
- Maguire kept taking the mask off.
- Spidey not wisecracking.
- Organic webshooters (I'll admit, fanboy nitpick there).
- Pointless cameos (Macy Gray? REALLY???)
- Shameless and pandering post 9/11 symbolism.
- Peter/MJ relationship tedious and stupid.

I could go on, but those were the biggest. TASM on the other hand I was way more satisfied with, as it was more of what I wanted out of a Spider-Man movie. Forgive me if I like Spider-Man taken more seriously.

@ Sylocat- I honestly don't know what went on with the Escapist. I contacted them via the channels their website provided. I can only guess what happened after that. And considering Bob was in a pissy mood at the time, I just wouldn't be surprised if that's what happened. But I could be wrong.

Popcorn Dave said...

Bob, I saw the film and wasn't particularly impressed. There are plenty of other negative reviews out there and although defensive fans are everywhere, I've not seen any of them get the backlash you have. You need to get over the fact that you brought this on yourself. All this whining and insulting your fanbase is just embarrassing.

Tony Russo said...

I remember a review Bob made a few years back that went something along the lines of:

"The worst kind of movie in my eyes is a movie that never tries ANYTHING new. Movies that are paint-by-numbers in all aspects piss me off. The difference between a critic and a casual movie person is a critic sees so many movies that his perspective shifts. A movie that fails in an interesting way is interesting to a critic, but a failure to a casual moviegoer."

That (most likely butchered by me) sentiment seems to be at play here.

Anonymous said...

You're rarely wrong about a movie, Bob, but your level of hatred for ASM is weird and you couldn't sell it because the criticisms you had (except for the Crane thing being stupid, which it was) either exist only in your head (the "Twilight" effect/Peter Parker not having a character) or weren't fatal (origin changes, world building) to an audience that can handle multiple takes on the same basic story. You also failed to give the movie credit for the stuff it does well (some decent dialog and acting, good use of 3D effects and scale, scary-ass lizard monster). It's obvious this one was poisoned for you.

Sylocat said...

@Lord Slithor: I have bad news for your conspiracy theories. Bob doesn't have power over hiring decisions at The Escapist. He's not an Illuminati space lizard either, despite your apparent wish to believe that he is.

@Popcorn Dave: Ah, so because he had a backlash, he must have brought it on himself. Never mind the well-documented number of trolls that Bob has had following him around and viciously attacking his every move for eons now.

Anonymous said...

I actually hate how people are so unrelentingly angry against your opinion Bob, considering their arguments are opinionative too. You all are expressing your own opinions and are coming off biased due to them. And hypocritical, using opinions to fight opinions.

This is not funny anymore.

Popcorn Dave said...

The reason Bob has so many "trolls" is because - on certain topics at least - he acts like a bit of a dick, talking down to his audience, using dodgy arguments and pretending to be some kind of academic when he's clearly nothing of the sort. That tends to piss people off.

Gordy said...

Things only piss them off if you let them, mate. :)

Gordy said...

D'oh. "Piss you off", rather.

I clearly haven't woken up yet.

Unknown said...

Can you explain to me how you praised Captain America for the protagonist having been what he is liked even before he aquired his superpowers while at the same time criticising TASM for the exact same thing.

Sam Robards, Comic Fan said...

Lord Slithor said, "Doc Ock and Sandman were NEVER EVER nice guys!"

While you're right about Doc Ock, Sandman was actually pardoned and became a reserve member of the Avengers at one point.

Fanboy nitpick, I know. I just felt I needed to prove my nerdiness.

Sylocat said...

@Popcorn Dave: Really? That's your explanation for James, and for Tim before him?

Anonymous said...

I never saw Raimi's Peter Parker whinny. He honestly seemed to take a lot of crap that is thrown at him and at least his sadness is understandable. In the new movie, he literally starts to freak out about his dad not being there out of no where and for no real reason other then to have an excuse for him to run off and have Uncle Ben chase him.

Green Goblin design was definitely bad but I really like Doc Ock's. I mean it is better than his yellow and green costume and miles better than the green Voltamore in Amazing.

I agree he took his mask off too much but at least in the first movie only one person figured out who is. In Amazing, at least 3 people know who he is (4 if you count the guy at the end)He gets unmasked by one, he tells the other Gwen so she will make out with him more and the Lizard finds out the stupidest way possible. The kid can make his own web shooters and help re-grow someones arm but he isn't smart enough to take his name off the back of a camera?

I actually can't remember any other scenes besides the car theft scene where Spidey is actually making wisecracks. And for a movie that wanted to make him witty, the best wisecrack is still in Spider-Man 1 where he fights the wrestle.
"Cute outfit, did your husband give it to you?"

Chris Cesarano said...

I'm assuming you read a lot of this stuff, as you've mentioned it, and though I don't really know if you'll remember me or what you actually think of me between my comments here and from our meeting at PAX East. But I do want you to know that while I do not favor your opinion on Spider-man, I also don't hold it against you, be it as a critic or as a person. I'm sorry to have been one of the many that reacted as I had to your review.

I do agree with what you say about what it meant for Raimi to be given the reins on the original Spider-man trilogy, though. Without that movie I'm not sure the Marvel movieverse as we know it could exist. So while I have issues with it in hindsight, and I'm not a fan of a lot of Raimi's signature style, I do get why anyone that's a fan of comics and film would have a soft spot for it.

It's a damn shame when something like this comes around and so much filth gets slung all over the room. I'm sorry I was one of the many negative voices when it came to your reviews. However, just as I do with plenty of my friends, I'm willing to disagree.

Lord Slithor said...

@ Sylocat- Like I said, I could be wrong. And am willing to owe up to it if I am. And I never said it was conspiracy. I didn't know how much say, if any, Bob has over at the Escapist. So good to know at least what the pecking order is.

@ Sam Robards- Yeah, I was aware of Sandy's brief stint as an Avenger. Tho it was only temporary and later retconned to make it seem like he wasn't himself during that time. I'm talking though about his origin, and how at the outset he was little more than a common thug when he came into his powers. Unlike other Spidey villains like the Lizard or the Green Goblin who had a sympathetic or tragic dimension to them, Sandman wasn't one of them. And it was a mistake IMO for Raimi to try and make him out to be; one reason why I don't think that despite his assertions to the contrary, he didn't "get" Spider-Man.

Anonymous said...

Personally, MovieBob, I thought your Spider-Man review was spot-fucking-on. I've just recently started checking out your reviews on a regular basis, and I gotta say that I've rarely encountered a film reviewer whose opinions seem to match my own so closely. I really enjoy your stuff. Don't less the zealots get you.

guyinthehat said...

Chances are this article is probably done getting responses and someone already responded to AmazinglyDisappointed but I found myself heading to the post comment section after reading the statements that cheesy isn't a genre.

I'm with you on some points in how Bob handled the fans and the film but cheesy is a genre. It's called camp.

Anonymous said...

Holy ****ing Christ! Did I just step into a Twilight Zone where online movie reviews matter a hell of a lot more than they do in the real world? Is there a danger of people who disagree with the reviewer being executed by a movie-critic-totalitarian regime?

You didn't agree with his review? Fine, you enjoyed the film, be happy about it. You don't like the way he writes reviews, well don't read them - his is hardly the only movie-review show in town. This is ridiculous.

What the **** is this shit?

7star Watches said...

Our commitment is to provide our customers the best shopping experience possible with our personalized customer service at a safe and secure environment. Watches prices in Pakistan
Original watches in Pakistan
Watches brands in Pakistan