Love that movie!
Spider-Man getting a reboot.
-
-
This. 100% agree. Also if Jameson is in the sequel (and he better be) then I will accept no other actor but J.K Simmons. Just as RDJ is Tony Stark, Simmons is Jameson. He must be cast again, he must!!!
As unlikely as it probably is, I agree and totally want JK back as JJ. Accept no substitutes.
Honestly, likely the only reason Jameson wasn't in Amazing was because we already had Captain Stacy filling the "public figure who distrusts Spider-Man" role. But in the sequel, maybe, even though the people of New York have come to accept Spidey as a hero, there might be one particular prominent newsman who isn't buying it, and insists that the wall-crawler is a public menace…
Also totally digging the idea of Mysterio as the villain for The Spectacular Spider-Man (I will call film #2 by that name until proven otherwise). A story involving both him and Jameson, with the focus being trying to defame Spidey… that could work really well, I think. I'm sure they could tie Mysterio into the Oscorp plot somehow, too.
-
Just saw it. After all the negative reviews I read (I guess I should have read this thread instead, surprised how positive everyone suddenly is about the film
) I was very pleasantly surprised. This movie goes a long way to make all the characters sympathetic and three dimensional and thats why it succeeds. My main complaint about the old trilogy is how I really didn`t care about the characters because they all seemed so boring and characterless. Peter Parker is awesome here; I agree that it was a bit too much drama, but as someone explained, his life often sucks. I think he managed to wisecrack just fine though. I also like that it takes some time before he first puts on his suit, reminded me of Batman Begins. And Gwen was so great!! A girl that hits a giant Lizard monster with a chair sure must have some guts
And like said before, she actually does stuff and isn`t just a damsel in distress!
The Lizard got a lot of flak, but I think he was an alright villain. Yes, his face looked a bit silly on close-ups, I don`t know if a snout really would have helped so much though. But I think in all other aspects he looked pretty well and the fights with him sure had some nice choreography. I agree he turned from "nice, pretty sympathetic guy" to "crazy psychopath" a bit fast, but hey, turning into a big, agressive Lizard monster may play some tricks on your mind.
! Btw, what happened to asshole Oscorp man? He didn`t die on the bridge right? He just disappeared after that, I was sure he would be turned into Lizard food at some point.
-
! Btw, what happened to asshole Oscorp man? He didn`t die on the bridge right? He just disappeared after that, I was sure he would be turned into Lizard food at some point.
! No, he did not die. Originally, asshole Oscorp man survived the encounter on the bridge into order to tie into a ABSOLUTELY MAJOR Plot-Line of the film that was boasted about as Peter's "Untold Story/Genetic Destiny" in all the trailers and clip-scenes, and then completely cut-out of the film at the last possible minute.
! His name was Dr. Ratha and in the trailers, he was the one who spoke the lines "Do you have any idea, Peter, of what you really are?" and "Do you really think that what happened to you was just an accident?"
! Also, did you notice how Dr. Conner's lines in the trailer: "Ready to Play God?"/"If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, come and get it!" were absent? It tied into the same sub-plot too and was cut for an unfathomable reason.
! Please take the time to read these Two Articles, it answers your question in more detail than myself: http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/did-the-amazing-spider-man-lose-some-of-the-untold-story-dna/
! more here:http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/
Someone married their stepmom and then got murdered?
Sounds like he used a monkey paw to make a porno story come true.
Then the curse of the paw eventually killed him.
-
-
@Rogues':
! No, he did not die. Originally, asshole Oscorp man survived the encounter on the bridge into order to tie into a ABSOLUTELY MAJOR Plot-Line of the film that was boasted about as Peter's "Untold Story/Genetic Destiny" in all the trailers and clip-scenes, and then completely cut-out of the film at the last possible minute.
! His name was Dr. Ratha and in the trailers, he was the one who spoke the lines "Do you have any idea, Peter, of what you really are?" and "Do you really think that what happened to you was just an accident?"
! Also, did you notice how Dr. Conner's lines in the trailer: "Ready to Play God?"/"If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, come and get it!" were absent? It tied into the same sub-plot too and was cut for an unfathomable reason.
! Please take the time to read these Two Articles, it answers your question in more detail than myself: http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/did-the-amazing-spider-man-lose-some-of-the-untold-story-dna/
! more here:http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/Well the reason is actually pretty easy to conclude if you think about it. The film was already way too packed as it is and stretching at some parts. The real question is why wasn't it foreseeable that that was one too many plotlines. It sure left me a little scratching about those parts nice to gain some insight ont hat issue. But I don't think the film would have been better if they included it. It probably would have felt like the 3rd movie and become a plot mess.
Well he sure has weird issues with the movie like the suit is too blue but whatever, the one thing I don't agree upon is that he wants to cut the first person sequences. I thought they added an interesting layer to the film. That said they still can be vastly improved upon and they used them at some points kind of badly.
! For example first person parcour scenes aren't that exciting. I liked them when they were used during fights when he dodges or attacks. It made me think "mmh where is he going to shoot his web next" kind of like the second sherlock holmes movie where they highlight the important objects so you can try to think along. I'd love to see them iterate on the concept and maybe try to tie his spider senses into it alas they need to be careful not to overuse it.
Because the film had to deal with so many things I also strongly feel like the lizard was a wasted villain.
Rather have him look stupid in lizard form I would have loved a stronger display on the duality of connor being a genuinely good human and the lizard that aggresive beast with good intentions but acting on them in twisted ways. Some of that got through during some scenes but I feel like the character needed more. A scene where connor is torn with his new side would have been nice too, but he was way to accepting and turned to be a somewhat boring villain. -
@Rogues':
! No, he did not die. Originally, asshole Oscorp man survived the encounter on the bridge into order to tie into a ABSOLUTELY MAJOR Plot-Line of the film that was boasted about as Peter's "Untold Story/Genetic Destiny" in all the trailers and clip-scenes, and then completely cut-out of the film at the last possible minute.
! His name was Dr. Ratha and in the trailers, he was the one who spoke the lines "Do you have any idea, Peter, of what you really are?" and "Do you really think that what happened to you was just an accident?"
! Also, did you notice how Dr. Conner's lines in the trailer: "Ready to Play God?"/"If you want the truth about your parents, Peter, come and get it!" were absent? It tied into the same sub-plot too and was cut for an unfathomable reason.
! Please take the time to read these Two Articles, it answers your question in more detail than myself: http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/did-the-amazing-spider-man-lose-some-of-the-untold-story-dna/
! more here:http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/05/was-the-untold-story-cut-from-the-amazing-spider-man/This is insanely interesting, thanks for posting. Man, I sometimes really wish, in such instances, they'd just make it go over length or some shit - but I guess if they wanted to take this out, they had reasons, even though I and probably many others think it sucks. And we'll probably not get those scenes back either.
-
I saw the movie yesterday and it is pretty damn good. The characters, the acting (Garfield, Stone, Leary and Sheen especially) and the story is all well executed. But as someone else said, is much more a Peter Parker movie, than a Spider-Man movie is that make any sense. I was surprised as how many twists the movie had, and how it goes as far as possible to the "Raimi formula" (save the girl, save the girl, save the girl).
I love the fact that every action, wasnt just there to look cool, but also made the character grow more mature and closer to his hero persona. One of the best super hero movie in a while IMO.
-
Cyrus, Co-host, say it ain't so.
-
Cyrus, Co-host, say it ain't so.
As much I love spill I can't agree with their review at all.
I love this movie.
-
Saw the movie today. I thought it was pretty good. I'm glad that they made this movie a lot less camp than the Sam Reimi movies, and it's a pretty good story on it's own, but I think it still had a fair amount of issues.
! Nothing I can really say that hasn't already been mentioned, but some of the scenes felt rushed, the Lizard's motivation was kinda rushed and glanced over and there's a bunch of various nitpicks I could make (Why did he leave the label "Property of Peter Parker" on the camera?! Stupid!).
! I will say though that I actually really liked this film's version of Uncle Ben's death. Since Peter was largely responsible for a lot of things leading up to his death (forgetting to pick up Aunt May, getting in a fight and leaving in the middle of the night, and of course letting the robber go free) it hit home a lot harder.And the lamb lies down on Broadway
-
Saw the movie today. I thought it was pretty good. I'm glad that they made this movie a lot less camp than the Sam Reimi movies, and it's a pretty good story on it's own, but I think it still had a fair amount of issues.
! Nothing I can really say that hasn't already been mentioned, but some of the scenes felt rushed, the Lizard's motivation was kinda rushed and glanced over and there's a bunch of various nitpicks I could make (Why did he leave the label "Property of Peter Parker" on the camera?! Stupid!).
! I will say though that I actually really liked this film's version of Uncle Ben's death. Since Peter was largely responsible for a lot of things leading up to his death (forgetting to pick up Aunt May, getting in a fight and leaving in the middle of the night, and of course letting the robber go free) it hit home a lot harder.Wait…
! While that stuff's all nice and dandy, you didn't have a problem with that fact that Uncle Ben tried to grab the robber's gun, even though the robber most likely wasn't going to use it on anyone in the first place? It just seemed so unnatural the way Uncle Ben went out in the movie. If you see a robber, running in your direction, who falls down, has his gun slide out of his jacket onto the sidewalk, would you really try and make a dash for the gun when the man obviously had no need to use it? It just looked like Ben was trying to play the hero or something, and ended up getting his own self killed in a very weird way.
-
Saw it yesterday and I liked it.
Even the Lizard wasn't that ugly in the end as I thought.It's a good reboot and I hope there'll be cool villains in the sequel.
-
Wait…
! While that stuff's all nice and dandy, you didn't have a problem with that fact that Uncle Ben tried to grab the robber's gun, even though the robber most likely wasn't going to use it on anyone in the first place? It just seemed so unnatural the way Uncle Ben went out in the movie. If you see a robber, running in your direction, who falls down, has his gun slide out of his jacket onto the sidewalk, would you really try and make a dash for the gun when the man obviously had no need to use it? It just looked like Ben was trying to play the hero or something, and ended up getting his own self killed in a very weird way.
! Well, Ben was a noble guy, so I could see him playing the hero in a life-or-death situation. The thing is, as far as Ben knows, this is a robber with a gun who could easily harm or kill someone. Who knows what he would've done with the gun? Sometimes criminals kill people for no real reason. Maybe he would've shot Ben even if he hadn't tried to stop him. And even he didn't try, he could've hurt someone else. Point is, Ben saw an opportunity to stop this guy, even if it was foolish (sometimes doing the heroic thing is). I think it also ties in to what he said earlier about if you can do something good, you should do it.
! When I think about it, yeah, I guess the whole thing is a little weird, but it doesn't really bother me. -
So I finally saw it. It was alright, but far from special to me. I have a pretty long list of complaints, though.
! 1. It destroyed the fact that Peter Parker was destined to be Spider-Man instead of anyone else.
! See, any one of the many people at the science exhibit could have been bitten by that spider, but fate chose Peter Parker to tie the web of the spider. This movie made Peter walk into it and get bitten through rash action and vandalism. It takes away the magic.
! 2. The mass produced spiders had been genetically altered by Peter's father, Richard Parker, at least 10 years before Peter broke into that lab. In all that time, no one was bitten? Not a single spider had gotten out? The security was laughable, and primarily reliant upon a security lock that was no more secure than a damn cell phone' s swipe code feature, and while the scientists were in quarantined clothing, they didn't have any sort of decontamination scene so, it is ridiculous to believe that over 10 years, not once did a spider crawl onto their clothes and get out.
! 3. No spider that I have ever heard of has ever bitten someone then turn around and bury a web inside of the bite wound, and proceed to die.
! Likewise, the way that the spiders just dropped off the web because he twinged on a strand… was horrible. Spiders would react to a disruption in the web, but falling off? What?
! 4. Gwen knowing Peter's identity as Spider-Man ruins one of the biggest facets of their history. The tragedy that Gwen feared Spider-Man while loving Peter was the loyalty and sweetness that differentiated her from MJ, Felicia, Sable, and many other love interests in Peter's life. She never knew, and never needed to know his identity as Spider-Man to love Peter.
! 5. Why was Gwen so okay with the death of her father? The movie ends with Peter mocking a promise he made to her dying father, and she smiles. And she doesn't even for a second have a thought of "why didn't you save my father?"
! 6. Not a second of "Parker luck." Sad.
! 7. Peter didn't do anything to that giant lizard-rat? He just left it there. I'd ...think it could have slunk off into the sewer or attacked someone.
! 8. Curt Connors was always shown as a Jekyll & Hyde character. He didn't want to become Lizard but it would take him over. The way he kept continuously dosing himself took the deeper layers of his character and threw them down the sewer.
! 9. Speaking of sewers, those were the most immaculately clean sewers in all of history! Now, I did not want to see dead rats and dookie, but crystal clear water, human characters getting mouthfuls of sewage water and not a single instance of them uttering about a smell? It's just too much to take.
! 10. They never did any detail with the plot point of the small actual lizards being drawn to Lizard.
! 11. Peter Parker, the superhero who, more than any other, has a history of wanting to be unknown, was so loose with his identity! Even after realizing he needs to wear a mask! Not only does he swing across town as Peter Parker and only cha...nge into his Spidey suit AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME but he takes off his mask while there! Not even to mention that he goes out and shows off at school as if he's always been a bad ass. His actions there and jumping from the three-point line to smash the hoop off the backboard didn't have anyone wonder "Hey, Peter Parker is crazy freaky." Or the whole fact that EVERYONE SAW HIM IN REGULAR ASS SCHOOL CLOTHES THROWING DOWN WITH LIZARD AT THE SCHOOL. ARGH!
! 12. Spider-Man's suit had sneakers built in. That bothers the holy hell out of me! It looks so dumb!
! 13. Spider-Man is shot in the leg and has trouble getting into a run for his web swing across town for the final battle with Lizard. Then he proceeds to do a long series of quick dodges and kicks with no problems.
! 14. Spider sense allows Spider-Man to automatically know where to fire a web to get somewhere quickly. Moving the cranes into position would interfere with his senses and slow him down. Not to mention that if that were the only way he coul...d get there, why didn't the move cranes out of the way to hinder him when he was considered a vigilante.
! 15. Oh, about him being a wanted vigilante: a police chief can NOT issue a warrant for his arrest the way he did. A judge issues the warrant. Nice fact work. Can figure that out with just one episode of Law & Order.
! 16. Captain Stacy's death really ruined one of the things for Spider-Man's theme of "with great power there must also come great responsibility." Just as Peter had a feeling of guilt of inaction in not stopping Uncle Ben's killer in a robbery, Peter was partly responsible for the rubble that killed Captain Stacy. With all that debris that fell (more on that in a moment), they could have done that scene just as well, but instead, it's purely Lizard's attack. Peter is also partly responsible for Gwen's death later on. It's one of the wonderful themes in Spider-Man's life that continually ties things together.
! 17. A LOT of debris fell off that building, which was surrounded by people. I have to assume someone was killed by this.
! 18. Spider-Man saves the boy in the car that was thrown off the bridge (in a ridiculously overstretched scene, where he talks forever and TAKES OFF HIS MASK AGAIN, and has the boy climb, when he just shoots a web anyway, which he could hav...e done to begin with and cut the whole thing short and still been a hero... and why was the dad such a dick? He didn't say thank you for saving my son, just "who are you?") and just shoots off. Are we to assume that goon who threatened Connors and worked for Norman Osborn died in his car even though he was alive when the car fell and Spidey caught it? We don't see him again. Strange.
! 19. Gwen has an umbrella at her father's funeral. It is raining REALLY FREAKING HARD. She moves the umbrella aside and looks into the sky for 22 seconds at least. Not a drop of water hits her. That is annoying.
! 20. Aunt May never asked Peter to get the eggs the second time. Was she waiting a whole week longer for him to finally get them?
! 21. Connors in human form for this movie still agreed with the thoughts he had in his Lizard form. Why did he go all "sudden heroic act" at the end instead of going "no! You fool! You doomed us all from being perfect reptiles!" That act wa...s well in line with comic Connors (well, before the Lizard ate his personality from within and ate his son to prove it) but not in line with a movie presentation that was really in line with the Lizard mentality's line of thought.
! 22. Connors is fired from Oscorp because he refused to perform human testing of the Lizard serum. So he goes home with his ethics... and tests the serum on himself. Why didn't he just keep the job?!
! 23. Osborn is dying and needs the cure fast. Osborn goon mentioned earlier states Richard Parker refused orders before and was killed for it. So... if he was desperate for a cure 10 years ago, why is he still alive now!?But, to its credit, this movie DID have the best Stan Lee cameo yet.
-
….uh,...what?
Seriously?
Dude, you just dissected this movie for every scene but LOVED The Avengers? Did you watch that one?
-
Avengers was a fun romp of fantastic characters bouncing off each other. That's all it needed to be. The new Spider-Man movie would have been fine if it were a character driven story of the wise-cracking hero. But it had to introduce a convoluted plot about Spidey's origins and it took a more dark and realistic tone that deviated from the comic book feel. Fair enough but if it's gonna act smart then it's going to be judged as being smart.
And if it's actually dumber than it thinks it is, it will be judged more harshly.
-
Still that list of complains is just silly. So many of those points can be defused from a standpoint of taste or even just thinking about them a little bit. Like when Gwen looks up in the rain the moment is stretched on purpose to give a certain impression to the viewers. If we talk about real time passed within the story that moment would be far shorter.
Or the thing with him not being super efficient with saving the kid is due human nature. I mean how long has he been spiderman at that point as in taking responsibility for his powers. Prior to this point all he did was being a vigilante and not exactly rescuing people left and right but rather just preventing criminals from doing anything. I actually like that scene because it makes him more relatable as a human, having superheroes being kickass all the time and never making mistakes is boring, people want to see heroes to struggle (which doesn't have to be against a villain but can be a situation like in this case.)
(But yeah almost every point there can be refuted)
Still even if your list of complains isn't objectively reasonable it's still valid in it's own right.
The only valid complains (as in objectively agreeable) I've heard for now are that the lizard was a horribly shallow display of villain, the at times really bad pacing due having packed so much content into the film and the noticable gaps of logic due cutted material which needed the viewers to do a few jumps of faith.
End of the line this is the best spiderman movie we've got to date and a step in the right direction.
Spiderman 1 and 2 where pretty amazing when they cam out but they really aged badly and are really shallow compared to other comic book movies that are out now, but back then they kind of broke the barrier of what a comic book movie can be.–--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for why it being judged as smart I don't really understand where that comes from. Just because it's more grounded (I wouldn't call it realistic because it really isn't) doesn't mean it's a smart movie. The whole origin story of spiderman already conflicts with the idea of it being a "smart" story. At least by my definition of smart (lucky number slevin would be a movie that I'd consider smart).
Really most of the criticism I heard for this movie just gave me headaches. Most were people not having the right attitude and totally wrong expectations (yeah some I know actually thought that this could rival the Dark Knight). Some just don't like the movie because of personal taste. Quite a bit who complain are idiots (people for example who complain about how this is a rehash of the old spiderman movies and why they show the same story again). And then we have a small group who actually puts thought into their criticism and make you look at the movie differently.
-
….uh,...what?
Seriously?
Dude, you just dissected this movie for every scene but LOVED The Avengers? Did you watch that one?
I never said I loved Avengers. I like Avengers a lot, and left the theater much happier, but I still felt the opening was too slow and it had little problems. Even still, it was really enjoyable. I didn't get that feeling from Amazing Spider-Man unfortunately.
I never meant to say anyone is wrong for liking this movie, just that things bugged me in it. I will praise it for a great Flash Thompson, a great Captain Stacy, and a great Aunt May, plus the wonderful Stan Lee cameo, but I ony feel Amazing Spider-Man was alright.
-
Alright, it just seemed that you showered negative praise on this movie (like the main reviews) but did the reverse on the more popular movie which din't really follow the comics much at all.
Regardless of that though, I really liked this movie and thought the Avengers was an entertaining movie but did NOT get the hype at all for that movie after seeing it. The reverse happened with this one since I expected it to blow.
-
Knocked out of the top spot after 2 weeks. Maybe Dark Knight will fare better. Who will beat The Avengers?
ΩMEGA PIRATES: ? Members
Captain: Zkaiser
Status: Dejected.
Threat Level: Pink
Goal: Prove the Elemental Haki Theory
-
James Caremon, most likely. Though Avatar 2 isnt likely to have s much pull.
-
Knocked out of the top spot after 2 weeks. Maybe Dark Knight will fare better. Who will beat The Avengers?
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/rorschachsrants/news/?a=64192 TDKR will beat The Avengers.
-
Maybe initially but how much staying power will it have in the long run? TDKR isn't exactly a film with a lot of rewatching value. Very much doubt Avengers will lose its global ranking so soon. Not to mention the rerelease at the end of Summer with 35 minutes of new footage.
-
@Thousand:
Maybe initially but how much staying power will it have in the long run? TDKR isn't exactly a film with a lot of rewatching value. Very much doubt Avengers will lose its global ranking so soon. Not to mention the rerelease at the end of Summer with 35 minutes of new footage.
Actually, I think TDKR has more rewatch value than TDK or The Avengers. The Avengers, since it's largely joke based and character based over plot, got worse with successive viewings starting with the third. That's when I started noticing flaws, same thing happened on my third viewing for TDK though. I'm seeing TDKR for the third time tonight, so hopefully that won't happen.
The only think TDKR may have going against it compared to The Avengers is that it is a lot darker, but there were kids as young as, I would guess, 7 at my midnight showing last night. So that might not even matter.
-
@Nex:
Actually, I think TDKR has more rewatch value than TDK or The Avengers. The Avengers, since it's largely joke based and character based over plot, got worse with successive viewings starting with the third. That's when I started noticing flaws, same thing happened on my third viewing for TDK though. I'm seeing TDKR for the third time tonight, so hopefully that won't happen.
The only think TDKR may have going against it compared to The Avengers is that it is a lot darker, but there were kids as young as, I would guess, 7 at my midnight showing last night. So that might not even matter.
My god. You're seeing the same movie three times in two days? Wow. Well OK, any movie starts to lose value over successive rescreens. Doesn't matter if you're watching Citizen Kane or Nixon. No movie is exempt from said drawbacks. Certainly not superhero movies. To say that, oh well the Avengers has some really weak points that start to really pop up the more you watch it. 9 out of 10 people realy won't care. To expect the Avengers to be perfect each and everytime you watch it is holding it to a standard that no movie can live up to and it's really unfair. And I'm glad you enjoyed TDKR as I did too. But you're acting like it's the greatest movie ever made and I'm sorry my friend but if you want to talk about weak writing and plotholes TDKR was full of them. I twisted my damn ankle because I fell into so many plotholes the movie did nothing fill. And I didn't have to see TDKR three times I only had to see it once to say, oh well how the hell did A, B, C, D, and E, happen?
-
@XerXes:
My god. You're seeing the same movie three times in two days? Wow. Well OK, any movie starts to lose value over successive rescreens. Doesn't matter if you're watching Citizen Kane or Nixon. No movie is exempt from said drawbacks. Certainly not superhero movies. To say that, oh well the Avengers has some really weak points that start to really pop up the more you watch it. 10 out of 10 people realy won't care. To expect the Avengers to be perfect each and everytime you watch it is holding it to a standard that no movie can live up to and it's really unfair. And I'm glad you enjoyed TDKR as I did too. But you're acting like it's the greatest movie ever made and I'm sorry my friend but if you want to talk about weak writing and plotholes TDKR was full of them. I twisted my damn ankle because I fell into so many plotholes the movie did nothing fill. And I didn't have to see TDKR three times I only had to see it once to say, oh well how the hell did A, B, C, D, and E, happen?
Now, I'm seeing it two times in two days.
I saw it about two weeks ago at a Critic screening.
And for me, Batman Begins gets stronger every time. LotR gets stronger every time (especially the Extended Editions) American Psycho only gets better every time I see it. The mark of a truly great movie is that it doesn't lose value with successive viewings. I've seen Cabin in the Woods 3 times in theaters, and it's still as good as the first time. I'm not being unreasonable expecting a film to hold up on consistent viewings. And I saw the Avengers 3 times over the course of 3 weeks, so it wasn't even back to back to back viewings.And TDKR isn't even close to the best movie ever. It's the best comic book movie ever in my opinion, but it doesn't even crack my personal top 10.
And I didn't notice any plot holes, so take your discussion over to the Rises thread and we can talk there. And remember to spoiler tag your posts this time.
-
@Nex:
Now, I'm seeing it two times in two days.
I saw it about two weeks ago at a Critic screening.
And for me, Batman Begins gets stronger every time. LotR gets stronger every time (especially the Extended Editions) American Psycho only gets better every time I see it. The mark of a truly great movie is that it doesn't lose value with successive viewings. I've seen Cabin in the Woods 3 times in theaters, and it's still as good as the first time. I'm not being unreasonable expecting a film to hold up on consistent viewings. And I saw the Avengers 3 times over the course of 3 weeks, so it wasn't even back to back to back viewings.But that's just your personal taste. None of those movies are actually changing each time you watch it. The plot isn't getting more fleshed out, the characters aren't getting more developed, nothing about those movies is improving or degrading. You're criticizing the Avengers based on your personal taste, and not the actual film itself.
-
No the movies are changing because my hype is dying down. When I'm not high on hype it's easier to be critical about a film. The problems I have with the Avengers were always there. I just didn't notice them because when I saw it for the first time, I was so hyped that no matter what the movie was going to be perfect. I know you've probably had an experience like that. That's why a truly great movie is able to live past the high of the hype.
It was the same for the Rises, but since I saw it for the first time 2 weeks ago, that hype had completely dissipated by last night so I was able to judge it more fairly. The movie wasn't perfect, it does have some minor problems here, and there, but I don't have any major grievances with it. -
@Nex:
No the movies are changing because my hype is dying done. When I'm not high on hype it's easier to be critical about a film. The problems I have with the Avengers were always there. I just didn't notice them because when I saw it for the first time, I was so hyped that no matter what the movie was going to be perfect. I know you've probably had an experience like that. That's why a truly great movie is able to live past the high of the hype.
It was the same for the Rises, but since I saw it for the first time 2 weeks ago, that hype had completely dissipated by last night so I was able to judge it more fairly. The movie wasn't perfect, it does have some minor problems here, and there, but I don't have any major grievances with it.You just proved my argument and disproved your own. That bolded statment just proved my argument that you're only criticizing the movies based on your own taste and not what is inherently good or bad in those films. I don't mean to tell you how to do your job but I'm a critic myself and I do write reviews and it's been my experience that it's better to ignore the hype rather than get swept up in it and end up having to do more work for yourself in the long-run. I mean do you watch every box office three hit times until you can nail a proper review?
And again I'm not knocking YOU personally but I've just never had that issue. I go in there objective the first time around.
-
@XerXes:
You just proved my argument and disproved your own. That bolded statment just proved my argument that you're only criticizing the movies based on your own taste and not what is inherently good or bad in those films. I don't mean to tell you how to do your job but I'm a critic myself and I do write reviews and it's been my experience that it's better to ignore the hype rather than get swept up in it and end up having to do more work for yourself in the long-run. I mean do you watch every box office three hit times until you can nail a proper review?
And again I'm not knocking YOU personally but I've just never had that issue. I go in there objective the first time around.
Are you kidding me? All moves are judged based on opinion. Now you're just being difficult.
In my opinion, the Avengers suffered because the beginning was entirely way too slow. Loki's defeat was horribly anticlimactic. A lot of the jokes are funny the first couple of times. The pacing was bad and inconsistent, and the plot was incredibly basic. There were no surprising twists and turns.It was definitely a good movie, but it's not the most amazing thing ever.
And the bolded statement in no way proves your argument argument. Unless you suddenly changed your argument. -
@Nex:
Are you kidding me? 0.All moves are judged based on opinion. Now you're just being difficult.
In my opinion, the Avengers suffered because the beginning was entirely way too slow. 1.Loki's defeat was horribly anticlimactic. A lot of the jokes are funny the first couple of times. 2.The pacing was bad and inconsistent, and the plot was incredibly basic. 3.There were no surprising twists and turns.It was definitely a good movie, but it's not the most amazing thing ever.
And the bolded statement in no way proves your argument argument. Unless you suddenly changed your argument.So I've seen the movie 2 times
0. They are but opinions worth reading are well justified and justification that is worth listening to is always grounded between the line of objectivity and subjectivity. If that weren't the case we could have every movie review be a single sentence, I like it/I don't like it.
1. How can it be anticlimatic when there was never a climax built around defeating loki?
The climax is when they unite and work together. In that sense the main antagonist were the differences between the members. Loki was never a threat to begin with to the team as a whole. This is further shown through the airship scene, what brings them defeat is not Loki but they themselves.
2. This I can't also understand. Maybe I'm biased because I really focus on the writing when I judge any form of media but I felt the pacing was fine. This was not written as a three act structure piece so maybe that's where the impression comes from.
3. Ok that is just silly demeriting sth. on that basis. Especially as a reviewer, persons who by all means should have extensive knowledge of the medium they are reviewing.
I mean I'm not a reviewer and barely any film/book/game has surprising twist and turns anymore, that's because I've already consumed a massive amount of media. Really almost everything I see I've seen somewhere else so what's left is the execution and that's something the avengers excelled at.
I've yet to see a movie that juggles so many strong personalities/characters within the limited timeframe of a movie so well. Sure if you can give me an example that does that better I may have to reevaluate but for now it's the best ensemble film I know.Also If you say TDKR is better than the avengers it would help if you make it clear on what basis you are comparing them. On drama? Yeah sure TDKR will probably win miles ahead. Especially when you compare really good movies a mainframe on what merits they are compared to another, is important to not come of as an dilettant.
If that statement is purely based on the point that both are superhero movies that's a very shallow way to view it and yeah with a scope that broad it's purely based on subjective judgement which doesn't amount to anything for anyone but yourself.
-
@Nex:
Are you kidding me? All moves are judged based on opinion. Now you're just being difficult.
In my opinion, the Avengers suffered because the beginning was entirely way too slow. Loki's defeat was horribly anticlimactic. A lot of the jokes are funny the first couple of times. The pacing was bad and inconsistent, and the plot was incredibly basic. There were no surprising twists and turns.It was definitely a good movie, but it's not the most amazing thing ever.
And the bolded statement in no way proves your argument argument. Unless you suddenly changed your argument.Well this is what I'm asking: when you watch a movie do you go in there objective or do you watch it with already pre-conceived notions about the movie? Because unless you go about watching movies in terms of the former you're not doing your job as a critic. And if you can't be objective you're not doing your job as a critic. For example, I hate every movie Quentin Tarantino has ever made except Resevoir Dogs. But if you tell me to write a movie review for Kill Bill, me being the OBJECTIVE critic I'm going to say the acting is good, the story is unusual but the script is solid, and the settings are unique. Even though I "personally" hate everything about every movie that man has ever made, sans Resevoir Dogs, as a true critic I do my job objectively.
-
This is the spiderman thread.
Just in case you guys didn't noticed. -
I definitely liked the movie but the love crap was annoying. Where the hell is Mary Jane? I also liked Toby Maguire as Peter Parker/Spiderman better than this guy. The only reason the movie was decent is because of the action scenes were much better than the previous ones. I still don't like how Lizardman was hax to that level. All I can say is I hope they do Venom again and don't fuck it up then I'll be happy. Still if Spiderman 3 hadn't been so terrible, I'd be mad they rebooted. The second Hulk was far better than the first and the second one wasn't that great a movie.
My superhero movie list:
Avengers 2
Ironman 3
A decent Venom/Spiderman movie -
I also liked Toby Maguire as Peter Parker/Spiderman better than this guy.
This is where I stopped reading. You serious man? I mean I believe there is one thing all of us here unanimously agree upon and its that
Andrew Garfield>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Toby Maguire -
This is where I stopped reading. You serious man? I mean I believe there is one thing all of us here unanimously agree upon and its that
Andrew Garfield>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Toby MaguireI've read he first page of comments are lots of people liked Toby Maguire. This guy seemed like he belonged in a romantic comedy where he gets the hot girl in the end. He didn't have the look. I think the CGI was the best part of this movie and the guy who played Lizardman, Leary wasn't bad but everyone else was like ok…
#45lyfer
-
1.I've read he first page of comments are lots of people liked Toby Maguire. 2.This guy seemed like he belonged in a romantic comedy where he gets the hot girl in the end. He didn't have the look. I think the CGI was the best part of this movie and the guy who played Lizardman, Leary wasn't bad but everyone else was like ok…
1. Consider that these are all comments when the film wasn't even out yet. Also Toby Maguire display of the really awkward embarassing nerd was at that time arguably still something people could imagine when thinking of the word nerd.
After social network (and even before due some other works) came out that picture got way more diverse and the awkwardness took on other kind of forms. Part of what makes the new spiderman movie way better than the old one is that it's presentation is more relevant to our time.2. I'd arguably say that this holds more true for the old movies. Toby Maguire always stayed that shy awkward persona as Peter Parker during the first 2 movies (I won't include the third in this because they dealt there with the contrast personality due the influence of venom there).
Garfield's Peter Parker gains a lot of confidence after aquiring his powers which is actually a more relatable reaction. And notice that due that he got the hot girl during the middle of the movie and not the end as opposed to toby maguire who had to get the girl a second time at the end of spiderman 2.That is if we talk about personalities and presentation if you talk about purely looks that's highly subjective and I can't add anything to that other than I disagree.
-
Toby maguire as peter parker is easily the worst cast lead role in any comicbook movie ever
And that includes dolph as the punisher
-
I've read he first page of comments are lots of people liked Toby Maguire. This guy seemed like he belonged in a romantic comedy where he gets the hot girl in the end. He didn't have the look. I think the CGI was the best part of this movie and the guy who played Lizardman, Leary wasn't bad but everyone else was like ok…
I agree with that. Everyone is so on Andy Garfield's jock that they didn't even pay attention to his very "un-Peter Parker like" behavior. When Ben got killed he didn't even exhibit any emotion like her cared. Total douche to aunt May and his attraction toward Gwen was more stalkerish than romantic. Tobey Maguire was an excellent Peter Parker and Spider-Man and his performance was met with widespread acclaim. Leave it to the pretenders to act like Garfield had the best performance ever. Newsflash. He didn't. And I'm not the only one who knows that his performance as uninspired and borderline ooc. http://www.spill.com/Audio/AudioPost.aspx?audioId=1196
-
@XerXes:
I agree with that. Everyone is so on Andy Garfield's jock that they didn't even pay attention to his very "un-Peter Parker like" behavior. When Ben got killed he didn't even exhibit any emotion like her cared. Total douche to aunt May and his attraction toward Gwen was more stalkerish than romantic. Tobey Maguire was an excellent Peter Parker and Spider-Man and his performance was met with widespread acclaim. Leave it to the pretenders to act like Garfield had the best performance ever. Newsflash. He didn't. And I'm not the only one who knows that his performance as uninspired and borderline ooc. http://www.spill.com/Audio/AudioPost.aspx?audioId=1196
At least these Garfield jocks can actually put forth an argument why garfields performance is better than maguires.
Your whole post is just an opinion without any justification whatsoever so why should people care about? Seriously how about giving some points of comparison.
What is un-Peter Parker like even mean? Is this related to the comic presentation?As it's stands your arguments (and it's really a stretch to call them that) are just a person throwing a tantrum and looking down on others don't share his superior right opinion, pathetic.
So how about getting your head out of your ass and adding a logical post to the discussion that people can relate to of why maguire is better?
-
At least these Garfield jocks can actually put forth an argument why garfields performance is better than maguires.
Your whole post is just an opinion without any justification whatsoever so why should people care about? Seriously how about giving some points of comparison.
What is un-Peter Parker like even mean? Is this related to the comic presentation?As it's stands your arguments (and it's really a stretch to call them that) are just a person throwing a tantrum and looking down on others don't share his superior right opinion, pathetic.
So how about getting your head out of your ass and adding a logical post to the discussion that people can relate to of why maguire is better?
Are you retarded? Did I not just point out THREE areas in which Garfield was terrible at portraying Peter Parker. You are obviously slow understanding so let us revie and I'll try to speak on a level that someone like you can understand.
Garfield's Peter Parker didn't care that Uncle Ben died.
Maguire's Peter Parker was visibly torn apart and he showed this in his acting from his voice to his body language.Garfield's Peter Parker was just Edward from Twilight as Spider-Man.
Maguire's Peter Parket was the goofy, socially awkard nerd we have all come to love.Garfield's attraction towards Gwen Stacy and how he watched her from afar, had pictures of her, was something that only a stalker would do.
Maguire's Parker actually asked MJ for permission to take her pics.Garfield's douchbaggery towards his aunt and uncle had no place in the story and it wasn't even natural from a plot perspective.
Maguire's relationship with aunt May and uncle Ben was just like in the comics.Garfield portrayed a Peter Parker marketed for emos like you.
Maguire portrayed a Peter Parker marketed for fans like me.–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I understand that Andrew Garfield is your ideal masturbation subject but I personally, and this is just me (and apparently a hell of a lot of other people) I personally didn't find his performance THAT good.
-
XerXes…..what the hell is up with you today? First your TDKR is filled with plot holes argument which has been proven wrong multiple times and now Tobey Maguire is a better Peter....you are starting make me believe those troll accusations. WTF first of all Garfield spends a considerable amount of hunting down Ben's killer, clearly he cares. His attraction to Gwen is stalkerish instead of romantic....why because he has a picture of her? They had great chemistry, so great that they are now dating in real life! And how is that unlike Peter Parker...? Tobey met with widespread acclaim, the general public hated his performance! He cried like every 5 minutes he was onscreen, had no charisma, no wit or humour, didn't have the lean athletic ability that spiderman posseses. All of these attributes Garfield had.
-
XerXes…..what the hell is up with you today? First your TDKR is filled with plot holes argument which has been proven wrong multiple times and now Tobey Maguire is a better Peter....you are starting make me believe those troll accusations. WTF first of all Garfield spends a considerable amount of hunting down Ben's killer, clearly he cares. His attraction to Gwen is stalkerish instead of romantic....why because he has a picture of her? They had great chemistry, so great that they are now dating in real life! And how is that unlike Peter Parker...? Tobey met with widespread acclaim, the general public hated his performance! He cried like every 5 minutes he was onscreen, had no charisma, no wit or humour, didn't have the lean athletic ability that spiderman posseses. All of these attributes Garfield had.
-
The Dark Knight Rises had numerous holes. I'm just not as stupid as you or Nex to fall into them. Hundreds of other viewers, dozens of critics also pointed out plotholes in the movie yet you seem to have an issue with me and me alone.
-
Garfield's performance was dick and you know it.
-
I don't recall giving you an opinion so with that said, any argument you have probably isn't worth sharing.
-
-
Keep it civil and cut out the insults please
-
This post is deleted!
-
XerXes…..what the hell is up with you today? First your TDKR is filled with plot holes argument which has been proven wrong multiple times and now Tobey Maguire is a better Peter....you are starting make me believe those troll accusations. WTF first of all Garfield spends a considerable amount of hunting down Ben's killer, clearly he cares. His attraction to Gwen is stalkerish instead of romantic....why because he has a picture of her? They had great chemistry, so great that they are now dating in real life! And how is that unlike Peter Parker...? Tobey met with widespread acclaim, the general public hated his performance! He cried like every 5 minutes he was onscreen, had no charisma, no wit or humour, didn't have the lean athletic ability that spiderman posseses. All of these attributes Garfield had.
Few things. The views of the general public don't matter. They never matter because they don't know the comics. Number two, neither Garfield nor Maguire were atheletic as Spiderman because all of the action scenes were done by stuntmen. But I guess you missed Hollywood 101.
-
@XerXes:
Are you retarded? Did I not just point out THREE areas in which Garfield was terrible at portraying Peter Parker. You are obviously slow understanding so let us revie and I'll try to speak on a level that someone like you can understand.
Garfield's Peter Parker didn't care that Uncle Ben died.
Maguire's Peter Parker was visibly torn apart and he showed this in his acting from his voice to his body language.Garfield's Peter Parker was just Edward from Twilight as Spider-Man.
Maguire's Peter Parket was the goofy, socially awkard nerd we have all come to love.Garfield's attraction towards Gwen Stacy and how he watched her from afar, had pictures of her, was something that only a stalker would do.
Maguire's Parker actually asked MJ for permission to take her pics.Garfield's douchbaggery towards his aunt and uncle had no place in the story and it wasn't even natural from a plot perspective.
Maguire's relationship with aunt May and uncle Ben was just like in the comics.Garfield portrayed a Peter Parker marketed for emos like you.
Maguire portrayed a Peter Parker marketed for fans like me.Sorry but think hard what a justification is and than answer this question yourself.
Your just stating your opinion of the impression you got from both performances no relatable reason or whatsoever so people who don't share your opinion can see where you're coming from. So pls punch yourself for a moment so that any preconceived aggression from you can be cleared out of your head so you can give it another try an actually post something that adds to your understanding instead of making you look like a dick.But since I'm trying to set an example of how we should articulate so this can actually be a discussion and not just kids screaming their opinions to another I'm going to go through all your points.
1. Garfield's Peter Parker didn't care that Uncle Ben died.
Maguire's Peter Parker was visibly torn apart and he showed this in his acting from his voice to his body language.Now that statement is just wrong alone due the fact that there are actually scenes where he displays grieve over his death in the movie.
And he goes through a plethora of emotions in these sadness, guilt and also anger. As for how effective that got through the performance is another thing entirely but alone due the what the script was it's a wrong statement to make.
Also comparing these two I wouldn't actually be able to say which one was better Garfield had a lot more layered emotions which if you want to make a shallow observation of it you could indeed call emo. Maguire performed a clearer picture of first grieve and than guilt which is a perfectly fine interpretation.
Also the movie came out at a time where superhero movies were still trying to figure out what they can/should be so a more straightforward display was probably a better choice at that time but I think for today it's not sufficient which is why I prefer garfield for this point.2. Garfield's Peter Parker was just Edward from Twilight as Spider-Man.
Maguire's Peter Parket was the goofy, socially awkard nerd we have all come to love.Again your just showing what a douche you are and just throwing out your opinion which is just insulting. Try to be more empathic in your arguments and this might turn to be a good discussion. Nevertheless I plainly disagree.
Garfield's presentation of a "nerd" is just more time appropriate and I relate to that a lot better because I am actually considered by most as a nerd but not the kind that maguire displayed which was really stereotypically simple and ancient but probably more true to the comics? I have social skills but tend to be more introverted and that's what garfield displayed.3. Garfield's attraction towards Gwen Stacy and how he watched her from afar, had pictures of her, was something that only a stalker would do.
Maguire's Parker actually asked MJ for permission to take her pics.I think that's really hyperboling it. He had that photo because he worked on them for school he didn't have a collection of them and his wands tapestered he had it as a wallpaper.
I don't agree at all that this would make him a stalker. I'd say depending on the person it's either somewhat creepy or really cute but all in all still very harmless.
Why him asking MJ makes the whole performance of this romance better is also really hard to understand.I really like Garfield and Emma stone their realitionship felt really natural and they both were someone inept in how to display their affection for each other an the beginning. I liked Toby Maguire and MJ relationship too back then but when I rewatched the movies it's really just cringeworthy. Toby is always awkward in this relationship which just isn't really realistic. But yeah that's personal taste both romances are fundamentally different since both involve a different partner so I can't really say that one is better than the other.
4. Garfield's douchbaggery towards his aunt and uncle had no place in the story and it wasn't even natural from a plot perspective.
Maguire's relationship with aunt May and uncle Ben was just like in the comics.So I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to with douchbaggery? His outbrust at his uncle before he died and the outburst after directed at his aunt?
Or how he didn't drive his aunt home?
I can't really call it douchbaggery but irresponsible and very immature and that's what it is supposed to be in this film. So really it's all just teenangst.
He just gained his superpowers at that point too which adds to his confusion. So from that point it's very naturalI don't know the comics really well but if his character is so well defined and stable as a teenager that it doesn't leave any room to reinterprete how he should act I can relate if that didn't sit with you well but that again your opinion.
5. Garfield portrayed a Peter Parker marketed for emos like you.
Maguire portrayed a Peter Parker marketed for fans like me.Again another shallow point I'm getting tired of trying to get anything of worth out of these insults.
Your comment really just shows that you are just throwing a tantrum and don't think about what words you use.
Like I mentioned earlier to call his portrayal emo just shows poor judgement. I constantly get lectured by people that are really picky when using these labels so let's just say it can't be further from really being emo.That maguire was probably a truer display for comic fans might very well be true but really that's just very limiting.
That's a thing I actively don't like anymore about the old movies his character feels very caricature like always having only being plagued by one emotion at a time. It doesn't feel very relatable from a human perspective and seems to be made more to be idolized.
I prefer the new direction which makes it clear that he's actually a human and not even necessarily a good virtuos one but at least he tries to be.
