THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (Escape to the Movies)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Subscribe to Escapist Magazine! bit.ly/Sub2Esca...
Want to see the next episode a week early? Check out www.escapistmag... for the latest episodes of your favorite shows.
MovieBob comes to you with a very special Tuesday episode to find out just how amazing is The Amazing Spider-Man.
Escape to the Movies reviews the week's most significant movie. Watch the next episode of Escape to the Movies a week early, only on The Escapist.
New episodes of Escape to the Movies are released every Friday, only at www.escapistmag...
Subscribe: bit.ly/Sub2Esca...
Like us on Facebook: / escapistmag
Follow us on Twitter: / theescapistmag
Find us Google+: bit.ly/Escapist...
Follow us on Pinterest: bit.ly/Escapist...
Check out our Merch: www.splitreason...
My sister got me to see this movie by repeatedly telling me 'no, it's really good.'
Eventually I had to leave the room, because I was facepalming so much my nose started to ache. This movie SUUUUUUUUUUCKS!
Try pressing your palm into your forehead instead
And that not to mention the whole "Property of Peter Parker" camera idiocy. Seriously, even He-Man tried to hide his secret identity a lot better.
To be fair, he probably had that camera since before he got his powers. Obviously he'd keep the name on it then, and it could have slipped his mind afterwards.
Perhaps, but it's still a pretty dumb mistake to make when you've got a secret identity to keep. Besides, he didn't even made an effort to hide the camera or turn off the flash, so it was really easy for the Lizard to see.
too bad for those who eve LIKED the first one because in amazing 2 peter looks like he learned nothing and broke captain staceys promise like the douchey bastard he is.
***** Characters make mistakes, yes, but that doesn't mean the character should be praised for that. He willingly broke the promise, and he had to take the consequences for it. Maybe "douche" isn't the right word, but "immature" totally is.
So Peter Parker is immature. This is fine on making the character more relatable, but it doesn't make him more *likable*.
***** But it *is* a flaw of the character. And it's not exactly a flaw that can be easily forgiven. With everything he's been through in the first movie, he should know better. He just didn't learn anything. From both movies, he didn't learn anything. That's a flaw in the movie, not just the character.
*****
yes because its the same thing
*****
killers can be honest too by fully admitting they murdered. does that make them any better? no. you still have to pay for doing the wrong thing. and "a decision not to be made by either of them" is a bunch of bull and is exactly what got her stupid ass killed in the first place. instead of listening to peter she went on into the final battle when he tried everything in his power to keep her from danger and look what happened.
*****
yeah flipping a switch, someone really needed a oxford worthy mind in order to do what she did. spare me. regardless about the analogy my point still stands, peter broke his promise to captain stacey and still tried being gwens boyfriend and it ultimately led to her death all because of his selfish actions. "don't make promises you can't keep!" "yeah but those are the best kinds" that line really leaves a bad taste in my mouth now. plus she knew what she was getting into yet she is to blame for her own death. peter actively tried to stop her. thus he learns nothing because he's not at fault in her death. thats bad story telling, you can't have your cake and eat it too! its as if they just put gwens death in just because it happened. the movie missed the point because in the comics it had a set up, and it had consequences. do gwens family hate spiderman now? was harry a suspect? we're not told. in the comics people were scepticle of spiderman. yet here the public embrace him in open arms! gwens death may as well have never happened. hell gwen herself may as well have never had happened.
Usually, when I watch a movie, I can remember it the day after, or a month later. But something strange happened, the day after I watch the Amazing Spiderman, I forgot what the movie was, I couldn't remember any dialogue, any scenes, any battles... Nothing. So that's not good. I do remember all the original spiderman so take from that as what you will.
It probably means you felt it was generic. I think that's what happens when something is "calculative" and soulless (as Bob points out) as these Amazing movies. They're not "bad" (I don't hate them as much as Bob does), but there's so little substance that I can't help but forget 80% of these new Spider-Man films.
It feels so nice to have someone validate my opinion. Thank you Bob.
Also, for such a small team of talent, escapist is fucking awesome.
Couldn't agree with you more. Bob, Jim and Ben are all awesome.
loved that Bob got his wish and the amazing trilogy bombed. the first trilogy by Ramirez was way better.
Ramirez??????? Really??????
+Suicide is the cure for cancer it had three movies. Panda had an accurate Peter Parker yes it was better they cancelled Amazing Spider-Man 2 because there was clearly something wrong with it because the trilogy kept sequel baying
+strykerx24 ohno, Raimi's are much better.
But like.....Ramirez??
RAMIREZ! FILM MY SPIDERMAN MOVIES!
I miss that meme.
Mephisto: Dude, you already know my rate.
MovieBob: ...Fine.
MovieBob: (downloads Tinder)
God this movie and Man of Steel made me reconsider my love of comics. I hated it so much. It was so stupid from top to bottom. Hit every wrong note.
***** Even if the comic series for Superman and Spiderman were complete messes, I'd still wager they'd at least be artistically-compelling, whereas these movies are just sleek servings of pablum for fucking moron moviegoers (i.e. not comic book fans).
cleomagoolando I loved Man of Steel, yet I don't insult people who like things I don't like.
IOwnTheSpire I'm glad that I could make you feel so noble.
SonicRulez94 I thought man of steel was fine, does it hold up as the entry into Dc’s cinematic universe? No. Was it the Superman movie I wanted? Nah. But does it work as a Superman movie in today’s day and age, ehh I guess
At least Man of Steel tried something different
Kind of "amazing" that I'd used the exact same verbiage about all the coincidences/plot conveniences this movie "just happens" to have back when I first saw it. So, I'll take this opportunity to add a few things that "just happen" in this movie, like how Peter "just happens" to discover his father's papers dealing with experiments he conducted along with Dr. Connors, who "just happens" to be working at Oscorp, and who "just happens" to be under severe pressure to finish his limb regeneration program at the exact time that Peter "just happens" to provide Dr. Connors with his father's papers that help him successfully complete his experiments. Also, the police captain that's in charge of pursuing the mysterious masked vigilante known as Spider-Man "just happens" to be the father of Peter's love interest, Gwen Stacey, who "just happens" to be interning at Oscorp for Dr. Connors. Bob "just happened" to already have mentioned that last part, but I "just happened" to mention it again for an improved perspective. I also "just happen" to agree that this movie feels too much like Batman Begins, and also sucks.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one that took such exception to the "reimagining" of spidey. Raimi's was too silly and after school special, whereas this new iteration has parker as a sort of soulless douche that breaks promises and never feels much remorse for the death of uncle ben (he's not even responsible for it this time!). It all feels so pointless. I miss the old comics where he was just a nice, normal guy that cracked wise when he punched burglars. It's not that difficult a concept.
I liked this movie, but I agree with some of what Bob said in this review. Like the shitty writing, the way they had Uncle Ben die, and the inconsistency with Peter Parker's character. This movie overall fucked up the very essence of Spiderman's character.
.....now granted this explains why someone like bob would despise this movie (he's to old to connect to the man actor) but it does work for my and younger generations of geeks/loners who can connect to peter in a way they never could to Raimi's peter, who went through an existential crisis every time he chose to have a negative f*cking emotion
Just watched this review again after all these years. It is just as articulate and spot on as I remembered it. It really holds up. Bob was right.
Man, I remember seeing the fight with Lizard at a Wal-Mart and thinking "this looks terrible."
EVERY SUPERHERO NEEDS TO BE BATMAN
Fuck that shit, there is only so much depression a person can take. The only superhero that takes more shit from life than batman is daredevil.
I actually loved this movie...
I felt it was MUCH better than the original trilogy.
I'm not saying it was amazing.
It wasn't as good as the other 2 comic book movies that came out right around the same time, but I felt it was much better than the originals.
It felt more like the comics in my opinion, he actually had web shooters.
It showed Peter was actually smart, not just saying he was.
While a lot of it might have felt a little too coincidental, I'd still give it a solid 7/10.
I hated this one, and liked the 2nd one. Still prefer the Raimi ones just because I think as movies, they're just better despite being a little cheesy at times.
***** I like that Dr. Octopus didn't have a dubstep theme song complete with lyrics describing the character's angry mood.
cleomagoolando Haha, yeah I'm inclined to agree with you on that.
i would have opened the movie with the car-jacker scene, and then actually focused on "unraveling" his parent's mystery
i don't always agree with this guy, but this time hes hit the nail on the head. This film was a cinematic abortion.
Glad to see you went with the fidelity angle on this one as opposed to Ironman 3... but who are we kidding, as a Spiderman fan, when i explain to my friends why this sucks, they stair at me blankly
Call me crazy , but the idea of Peter never finding Uncle Ben's killer is a good one. I know you must be thinking "Blasphemy! Sacrilege!", but hear me out. The idea of Peter knowing that he is indirectly responsible for his uncle's death and being consumed with vengeance to find his killer, but ultimately learning to be a hero is compelling. It makes the theme justice and heroism vs. vengeance and vigilantism. By never having Peter catch Uncle Ben's killer it conveys that he let vengeance go and embraced heroism and it ultimately conveys that we should not be consumed with vengeance because it's not productive and that we have to move on and be greater than what we suffer. That is thematically great and moving. The problem is that the script is unfocused and the film doesn't present a thematic throughline that would have conveyed that message to the audience (at least not in an effective way). Sure we get the dinner scene and the bridge scene that are meant to transform Peter from vigilante to hero, but the film doesn't build a cohesive story around those themes , so it leaves the bridge and dinner scene unaided and unsupported in helping to define the arc that Peter takes. It comes off as saying that this one moment changes Peter even though he wasn't all that different before the change and isn't all that different after the change. The film doesn't commit to the character arc and that undercuts the resonance and power.
Ren Davis Nailed IT!!
You didn't watch very closely. The Dr. Connors turning into a lizard wasn't a coincidence if peter hadn't found the briefcase then he wouldn't have became Spider-Man and he wouldn't have gave Dr. Connors the equation. And I can't wait for the second one coming out next year because it will have more Spider-Man fighting stuff in it. You need a life seriously. You're a grown man and you sit down and rant about movies to people that don't care what you say.
I remember when this movie first came out, everyone was praising it on behalf that it was a remake... of an 80's Superhero movie!
I guess sometimes it takes the best to know or recognize the differences of Comic source material and Film Making
...always have the original comics, both old and new. Yes, because it is show business that also means the filmmakers will change whatever they want from the source material to appeal much to themselves more than the comic book fans. Not every comic book adaptation can be an "The Avengers"-esque creation where you can have colorful costumes and characters doing fun amazing things while having a consistant character that develops over time...
that parker was from the 60s. so it made sense for him to be this way. this one is playinh more for the current nerd generation. plus even in the 60s, they build up peter to be this regular guy.
For a "Spider-Man fan", Bob forgot how connected Parker IS to everyone! Sure, the Dad/Conners partnership I don't remember, but the rest is spot on. I think Garfield did well (though making him "hip" was stupid). I loved the action scenes, while the Lizard's turn-heel was weird. I hated the "angst" so much. I want a happy origin-free Spidey for once!
I really agree with Bob's corporate take. As much as I hate when films royally fuck up, I'd rather have it be a fuck up because someone cared but failed, than be a fuck up because no one cared and wanted to just fill a balance sheet.
Another thing that pissed me off was that Peter always took is fucking mask off.
I will never understand the hate for this movie. I found it a compelling, entertaining, well done movie that accurately represented Peter Parker for the first time ever on film. It's almost like everyone lived with the whiney ridiculous adaptation Toby Maguire dared to even try to call Spider Man for so long, everyone forgot what a sassy, wise ass he is supposed to be.
"Sassy wise ass"? Are we talking about Spider-Man or Deadpool, here?
***** But you're forgetting that Maguire was never a wise ass
All I know is that our theatre was really into the first half. All the jokes hit, and you could tell people were really connecting with the characters. Yeah the 2nd half was a bit soulless, but there was still a ton of great stuff in the beginning that the sequels can build on.
This movie kind of screams "I want to be Nolan's Batman" so bad that it turns purple and passes out.
I know you have a lot to pack into a review, Bob, but if you're going to make a point, give some evidence. How did they f**k up Ben's death? Peter refuses to stop a crime and Ben dies from it. Same as comics, same as Raimi films. Where did they go wrong?
Secondly, why do you think the Spider-Man costume redesign was stupid? Okay, I concede that the muzzle flash on the webshooters was dumb as sh*t but what's wrong with his outfit? There's more blue in it and he has sunglasses lenses in his mask, but I feel it gives a charmingly shop-class feel to it, which makes sense, given that he's a high schooler with a budget. Why do you think it doesn't work?
Jomeo Perkins Might as well jump in this one:
A big reason why this movie f**ked up the entire concept of Uncle Ben dying and it affecting Peter mentally and emotionally is because the entire subplot of Peter looking for his killer is dropped out of nowhere. Uncle Ben is shot, Peter goes on a quick (and admittedly impressive) fight sequence with a man he suspects is guilty, and then completely forgets about it. Sort of like, "Oh well, f**k it. Guess I'll never find him." And it was absolutely cringeworthy.
The uncle Ben death doesn't work because he tries to wrestle for the gun, getting accidentally shot. In the first Rami film, it is implied that he was shot just so the guy can take his car, and in both the main marvel universe and the ultimate universe, he's killed for no reason.
Not only does it come across as an accident in the Webb film, but Ben didn't need to try and get the gun; it was his choice. Therefore his death is more his fault than anything. They screwed up his death in Spider-man 3 though, so I'll just use the first one as an example of it done right.
+Jomeo Perkins Uncle Bens Death in TASM was absolutely meaningless. It is supposed to be peters fault that uncle ben dies, however in the reboot uncle ben gets himself killed. He wanders out at night alone, sees a dangerous criminal half his age and somehow gets the bright idea to try and wrestle with the guy for his gun. It makes uncle ben look like an idiot and absolves peter of any real guilt. It also makes the criminal not look so bad because the gun went off by accident. There is so much wrong with that scene. It doesn't work on any level whatsoever. I will never forget the day uncle ben died over a chocolate milk. As for the costume, it doesn't look like spider-man. The movie tried to be realistic and say "well hes poor and a crappy looking suit like this is the best he could make" not only is that a lame excuse, but the entire premise of that idea makes no sense when you take the web shooters into account. I mean how did this poor kid from queens create these incredibly flashy and futuristic devices yet that crappy costume was the best he could do.
I might cry because we have to sit through two more Spiderman reboots with Andrew Garfield in them as the Twilight-esque Spiderman
Thank God we only had to suffer through 2 years of this shitty ass "franchise"
look, I'm not gonna say that this movie didn't have it's problems, yes they botched the lizard storyline, yes peter parker's character was confusing, yes this was only made to keep marvel from getting spiderman back, BUT I actually liked this movie more than the other spiderman movies for one simple reason that marvel has done in all their movies, it felt like the people I was seeing were real, something I could never say about any of the characters from the other.....
Anyone know what he's talking about at 5:20?
ok I'm just gonna say it, that wasn't NY in the 60's, ok most of the US doesn't understand this, but NY has very rarely been the way the rest of the nation saw us as, the New film actually feels like it was set in modern day NY (coming from a guy that lives in modern day NY), also he wasn't a nerd/geek in the Raimi, granted I agree he's not supposed to be a model either but this is hollywood, where no one ugly ever gets work
I really wish that, instead of just rebooting everything, they could've just continued the original trilogy. Made this Spiderman the original's son. Maybe Peter senior just can't cut it anymore, so his son takes up the mantle.
actually peter kinda does as he learns to be a hero and tries to do the right thing. and no, there is nothing about him that makes him a jerk. if you say some stuff about aunt may and the ending then blame his pressure which most humans beings have and bad editing. what was mj's excuse? and no, the villain did explain his motivation. even when not reading the comics it is so obvious. i know it's all based on opinions but these kinds of opinions are just so stupid. you can
Raimi had the better story, Webb had better character development
Raimi had better Peter, Webb had better Spidey
Raimi had better supporting characters, Webb had better romance
Raimi had better villains, Webb had better action
Ya this is one hell of a mixed bag. They're all flawed, but not wholly irredeemable. That being said, Spiderman 2 still remains the best of the bunch
Webb had better character development?
Rami's Peter Parker went from an awkward nerd, to an irresponsible jerk only interested in using his power to impress a girl, to a responsible hero after the guilt he felt about letting Uncle Ben's killer run past him.
Webb's Peter Parker went from an Emo skateboarder, with enough balls to stand up to Flash Thompson in order to protect someone, to... what exactly? How did he change? He was sad about Uncle Ben's death, which made him want revenge, but it didn't really change his character.
drksideofthewal Maybe, but Maguire always seemed to be in an episodic phase where he went back to square 1 at the beginning of every film.
Ben Wasserman
Film 1, he decides to be a hero.
Film 2, he's tested harder than ever, and ultimately overcomes it.
Film 3 is considered a misstep by most. Even still, he's in a different place at the beginning of film 3, than he was at the end of film 2. People like him finally.
I'd still say it's better progression.
+drksideofthewal I'm not saying he doesn't develop, but the romance is usually stuck at will they/ won't they, which kind of gets bothersome. For all it's flaws, the Peter-Gwen relationship in TASM is vastly superior to Peter-Mary Jane, and it actually causes some good development in him. Yes it's bogged down by the story being way too complex for its own good, but believe me there are plenty of worse ways to go in terms of ruining a character. (ex. A: Bat-nipples)
+Ben Wasserman That relationship comes to naught given the rest of its flaws. Its spidey isn't that much greater especially since peter parker is the most important part of the story.
..be it a shock to comic book fans or film buffs, I LOVE THE NEW SPIDER-MAN!
Call me a film-lover/comic-book-lover/Filmmaker/Comic-Creator with lousy or even flawed taste if you must, but this Spider-Man film is the one I've always wanted to see, it has a good story that connects everything together that's at least not trying to Nolanize itself too much, I love the characters, the action, the effects are all great, Andrew as Peter is great and the romance with him and Gwen is more believable!
the only thing it did right was that peter is supposed to be a bit of a smartass in the suit, they got that
I personally liked it because it was respectful to the source material. It isn't perfect, but it's a hell of air better than Spider-Man 1 and 3
The problem with comic book films is that people who know the back story of there favourite comic book chartors is that if the directors and crew if they change it fans will get annoyed and at worst bored and damaging stans lee legacy
Listen to me very carefully, 90's kid.
NOT EVERY SUPERHERO NEEDS TO BE BATMAN.
Raimi went for a stylized 1960's Americana version of NY taking place in modern day. It gives the films a sense of timelessness and whimsy. With this film, they tried to make Parker look sexy. Peter Parker has been a lot of things, but "sexy" isn't one of them. He's SUPPOSE to be the geek. The omni-nerd. The everyman hero. The only reason 3 bombed so hard was because Sony wanted Raimi to include Venom.
You sir deserve a slow clap and a medal
So... What sequence was "the stupidest thing ever seen in a Spider Man movie?"
The one in between the opening title and the closing credits.
Sorry MovieBob, I don't agree here, all these criticisms sound more like they belong to Man of Steel than this film. Personally I find the new Peter Parker to be much more engaging and likeable than Tobey Maguire, due to the fact that he looks and acts more like a believable teenager, and hides his angst with Spider-Man's trademark sarcasm in and out of costume, which is something Maguire lacked. Points about the Lizard and his parents backstory are valid but not enough to stop me enjoying it.
I liked the old spiderman because he was relatable.
The new one looks like a Twilight protagonist.
BOB is my hero. My fear was that people would actually like it like the cinemasnob crew which pissed me off.
Michael Cera as Spider-Man...yeah, I could dig it!
That sounds like something out of my nightmares.
Anybody wondering why this movie and its sequel were "the most bland mass-market corporate film as product" made by "the Sony corporation" but years later Bob defended the 2016 Ghostbusters?
Three very simple reasons. 1st, bob is a sam raimi fanboy. 2nd bob is an mcu fanboy who either tears apart or holds back on giving praise to almost every non mcu superhero movie thats come out after the dark knight ie he thinks spiderman 3, thor 2, and iron man2 are better than the dark knight rises. 3rd as much as I hate to say it because I sometimes agree with them but bob is an sjw which is why he liked ghostbusters
Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 are better than The Dark Knight Rises.
the dark knight rises isn’t that good of a film but compared to the shit we have right now it looks like a masterpiece
Nailed it.
He made two videos for this. Why? I don't fucking know but after watching this review I highly doubt he even saw the fucking thing. Look if you don't like it, good on you. But all I heard from this was "I'M MAD BECAUSE SPIDAH MAN ISN'T IN DA AVENGAHS!!!!" Well you know what? GOOD I hope he stays out of the MCU altogether because Spider-Man is arguably the most recognizable Marvel character to the general public and it will become all spidey all the time.
the story could have better by Dr. Connors family man and a fan of a (brilliant but considered by many a mad scientist) Dr. parkers work and that's it never mention his parents after that. Connors works for a university that wants shut down his lab because a) he hasn't produce anything in years & b) a Osborn wants to by it include Connors research. Connors rushes to show progress so he experiment on himself. Doesnt work, trashes lab, hours later work. day later monster. and everything else same
I'm gonna have to side with laserwolf on this one. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but Bob isn't really giving an opinion in this video. All he's saying is "THE ACTING IS HORRIBLE, THE SCRIPT IS HORRIBLE, THE VISUALS ARE HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE!!!" without giving any kind of argument as to how or why.
The best Spider-Man film... has yet to be made.
Both this and the Ramei trilogy are heavily flawed.
i need to show my friend this review hes convinced this movie is better than spiderman 1
Hm... considering the fact that I said that I don't mind if someone dislikes the film if one has real reasons, I don't find your sarcasm warranted. Also, I highly doubt that movie bob is a "respected" film critic. Highly intelligent? Perhaps. Subjective? Yes. Respected? Hardly.
Why Martin sheen didn't say with great power comes great responsibility I still don't know
This has to be one of the worst movies I've seen. The makers of Sharknado tried harder than this. Movies should feel like art. This is a packaged product. Before Webb even knew what he had he patterned it, packaged it, and sold it! TASM doesn't understand anything about Spider-Man. He fights crime because of the guilt he has for indirectly killing Uncle Ben. But here, Uncle Ben gets himself killed by trying to take the gun from the criminal (stupid decision btw). Why should Peter feel guilty and be Spider-Man? Also the web shooters. I don't mind that Toby didn't have them. But it's supposed to show how smart Peter is. But in this movie he gets them and the ideas for webbing off the Oscorp website!!! WTH! What's worse is that Spidey is completely dependent on Gwen. She saves his butt 3 times in this film. Then in trying to make her interesting, they make her smarter than Peter so she keeps stealing his thunder! And the romance here sucks. All Peter and Gwen do is suck face. It's shallow. Then the lizard who changes at the flick of a switch twice. Who also looks awful like Spider-Man. So much more. Spider-Man 3 was so much better.
okay I am not gonna disagree with you about the lizard but that crack at the web slingers is wrong. The web slingers in the spider-man comics were made by Peter Parker, missed out in the old films (not to mention that Peter is actually very smart) and also the costume looks better and is, thankfully, different from the old one. Also the train scene wasn't that moving.
I just thought the crane scene was meant to a reference to the older ps1 games, other than that yeah, pretty much...
I really loved this movie. I so respect Bob's opinion, and I'm usually in 100% agreement with him. i'm not trying to argue... I don't really have a leg to stand on... I'm just perplexed. I don't know how I and my friends had a completely different viewing experience than 90% of the moviegoing public. Weird. Ah well :)
EngenBooks I wouldn't say 90%. I love that movie, too. I think the problem is that too many people didn't really want to like this new take from get go because of the background, but if you keep an open mind, you see a way better take on the origin story than Spider-man 1 had.
In my honest opinion, I'd much rather prefer a Curt Connors that doesn't want to be the Lizard and do the things he's doing, but has to because of his reptilian DNA. And I'd prefer a Spider-Man where nothing was conveniently connected because that'd mean it would go back to being what Spider-Man truly was: A young man who is struggling to hold a balance between his personal life and his life as a masked vigilante.
Bob was determined to hate this movie before he even went to see it. This hyperbolic vitriol is not indicative of reality; it is nothing more than the rantings and ravings of a fanboy. Does he have to like the film? Of course not, but the majority of these criticisms are completely unwarranted. They assume that Sam Raimi's films were the pinnacle of genius, and any film that doesn't reach those films is garbage. Both assumptions, of course, are completely and utterly incorrect.
Why watch this movie when you could just watch "The Spectacular Spider-Man" T.V. series on Netflix?
Nailed it, Bob. Nailed it!
Wow, I can't help but disagree with this review. I LOVED The Amazing Spider-man with a terrific cast, good character arc, excellent action scenes, and a great interpretation of the Spider-man Universe. I think Bob is seeing more of the business practices more than the actual qualities of the film.
Jeez, this movie is one of the most divisive I've seen in years. I agree more with Confused Matthew's view on the film.
I could probably write a better screenplay for a Spider-Man movie, and I'm not 100% familiar with Spider-Man's or his nemeses' origins!
I'd also like to say that it's very amusing how any comment that disagrees with Bob's assessment is voted down. Oh well...
As a fan of the "Sandman" series, I disagree with you about the nineties being the worst period ever for comics. But then again, my tastes in comics tend toward trippy stuff on the fringes of what's popular, not mainstream action stories. I've not read many Spiderman comics from any era, though I have seen all the movies. But don't worry, I still preferred the Rami movies to this one.
I don't get the deal about the costume being bad. It's not that different from the one in the older Spidey movies. I agreed with many of the other things he said, but not that. Could someone please explain that to me?
Spider-man is SUPPOSE to have annoying cheese in it, man. The whole "dark and brooding" thing didn't come into the comics until the 90's (which as any comic geek will tell you was one of the worst periods in the comic book industry).
The other gripe I have with this movie is that they show Parker is suppose to be an outcast......WHY!?!? He's boy-pretty. He SKATEBOARDS through the halls and stands up to bullies. How is this guy not ROLLING in pussy? o_O;
(con't) say that you don't like the arcs but saying some biased things that some people have said about the movie is just so stupid.
Doesn't change the fact that his review is pretty accurate...the movie was made just so sony could keep the rights to spider-man, Peter Parker in this movie has no arc and comes of a genuinely unlikeable at times. Bad CG, the villain's motivation is not even hinted at and just happens because it happened in the comics. And most of the fight scenes are boring say for the final showdown.
If you liked it, more power to you..but to say movie bob's criticisms are wrong is a bit extreme you know?
I like how he brings up a legitiment point and fair criticism for bob and gets negative votes for it, i love bob but this was a bais review before it the movie was even out.
Agreed 100 Percent
Ya know what they say, bob; it’s a leap of faith
This was where the goober gets crushed-they weren’t ready
Edit: *_we_* weren’t ready
So its not just me? I loved this movie, compared to the original trilogy and on its own. Costume could have been more pastel (my own tastes) and the scene with the cranes was kinda dumb but I dont mind as the end of the movie made up for it.
Sam Raimi went for "Classic superhero comic cheesiness" in a contemporary setting. This one went for a dark, more brooding take on the story, did it accomplish it? I don't know.
Oh shit, I actually loved this movie, but you made a lot of great points. This movie really isn't as great as I thought it was now that I think about it
How could you have thought the CGI was bad?
By it looking like ass.
Benny Demetri You look like ass.
George Baum I look like ass!
I eat ass.
Evan Bacon From an aesthetic standpoint I find it much more visually interesting than rami's
Donald Glover for Spiderman
See I must be the only one that thinks this movie was good. Yes it's not perfect, yes they are simply rebooting it for the money's sake but they made a well put together realistic version of Spider-man. I agree that the Lizard royally sucked but they got Peter and Gwen down perfectly. I thought it was very emotionally worth it and is mostly true to the source material, without adding too much. Gotta say I agree with Jeremy Jahns on this one, sorry Bob.
I used to be a Spiderman fan (out of all the Marvel characters he was by far my favorite) thanks to this movie and it's god awful sequel I'm now worried about being seen as a Spiderman fan for fear of being compared to the new-age teeny hipster punks who like this movie and think that this is what Spiderman's world is supposed to be like. Thankfully the failure of these two movies means that Marvel will be able to step in and take a shot at delivering a version of Spiderman that doesn't suck arachnid ass.
I thought this movie was pretty good.
See, as much as I admire this critic, this is one of those movies I severely disagree with him on. Yes, it's true it wasn't like the 60s campy comic books (don't even get me started on the "camp" discussion), it's true that the story completely differs from its source material for a wider audience even if it's visuals and looks of the characters are shameless cash-ins for pop-culture ticket sales (ergo Peter's Twilight look)...
...But you know what? Balls to that. The comic book fans will....
dont hate the movie but i see where Bob is coming from this movie really wasnt good
Yeah, and your comment is in NO WAY the rantings and ravings of a fanboy whos upset cause the movie he really liked is being shit on by a respected and highly intellegent and pretty subjective movie critic.
I feel like i saw a completely different film with the same name, i thought it was fantastic and half the criticism was picked out of thin air
1:00 HAIL CORPORATE SATAN!
you tell em bob
Meh, this is nothing but fanboy hate. I'm sorry but even when you make two videos that have nothing good to say about this movie, that again wasn't as bad as Green Lantern, is ridiculous to no end. It's my opinion, by the way, not saying he should be distrusted for his criticism, but I didn't see the total BADNESS he thinks this movie has, it doesn't insult my intellegence, it's interesting, the romance is BETTER than Twilight could ever muster and the villain is good...BRING ON SPIDEY 2!
I never liked the chemistry between Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst; I really wanted to like this better since I liked Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield as leads, but it was just terrible.
WHY (!!!) do people give Andrew Garfield a pass in these movies? I just don't understand it! He is absolutely a passable (even bordering on good) actor. I liked him in Social Network (or The Social Network or Facebook.movie or whatever it was) but goddam... he provides on of the absolute worst, most teen punk dipshit asshole interpretations of Spiderman that could ever possibly exist. People should loathe this actor for his turn in these movies. All the love seems to come from the fact that people genuinely like the guy, but omg he is just the worst Spiderman.
+ijm johjn yes
He did.
The suit's got too much blue going on, the web details on the red part are too light and barely visible. The blue lines going along the arms (around the red gloves) gives the whole thing a 90's style "extreme" look and since the 90's in comics was like the WORST period in the entire medium, it leaves a bad taste in fans' mouths. Of course, the average 90's kid wouldn't get this just because the 90's in when Venom came out and they think Venom is cool...
Here's my opinion. This verison's "Spider-Man" was a much closer fit to that of the comics but his "Peter Parker" Sucked. Peter was a clumsy, highly intelligent, accidental goof and a all around complete and utter dork until he got his powers and even then, in real life situations without his costume, he still was a simple nerd who was always picked on and made even more clumsy mistakes due to the accidental use of his powers, making him seem MORE like a freak. This version's Peter sucks alot