Escape to the Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man

Nigh Invulnerable

New member
Jan 5, 2009
2,500
0
0
I may have to go see this soon just to spite Bob. I've grown tired of his negative, fanboy-based reviews that simply boil down to "They didn't make it the way I would've, so I don't like it". To each their own, as the saying goes. I would like Spidey to return to Marvel/Disney though, just so he can get some crossover into the Avengers universe.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
So they did it!, the greatest achievement of actually making a worse film than Spiderman 3!

 

BX3

New member
Mar 7, 2011
659
0
0
Huh... did not see that one coming.

Though I will agree that the romance aspect was contrived and somewhat lazy, but I felt it was because they didn't spend enough time on it. Gwen, despite Peter's glaring flaws and hot-headedness halfway through the movie, was suddenly stricken with the guy. Maybe she likes bad boys? I'unno, I just I thought it was dumb.

Every other part of the review though... wow... that was. Wow.... I don't normally watch these, so someone help me out, is Bob usually this angry?
 

IamLEAM1983

Neloth's got swag.
Aug 22, 2011
2,581
0
0
I don't know, I'm probably going to get chewed out for saying it, but I didn't think it was that bad, honestly. It's a comic book movie, for starters, and plot convenience is all over the place in comics. I really didn't mind the smaller scale of it all, seeing as it at least gave the impression that things were going to be more personal.

As for the shift towards Peter's parents, I figure that's something that had to be addressed at some point, either in a comic continuity or in film form. As far as I know, they've always been spies in some form or another, and my guess is it was time for another retcon. The first time I heard about the whole spy parents thingy, the Parkers infiltrated the USSR. It stands to reason they'd retcon that into something more current.

I didn't hate it, overall, but nor did I think it was incredible. It's a lot like a superhero, summer blockbuster version of "Haywire". Entertaining enough, but ultimately forgettable.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
SupahGamuh said:
So they did it!, the greatest achievement of actually making a worse film than Spiderman 3!

This scene alone is better than the entirety of most other superhero movies... including Amazing Spider-man.

I'll say it like this. I did not hate Amazing Spider-man... but I did hate a lot about it. I liked a lot about it too.

That's what's so frustrating to me. Amazing Spider-man has some truly great highs and some truly low lows. When it's good, it's great, when it's bad, it's terrible. There's almost no middle ground... and it ultimately leaves me with an unsatisfied feeling.

I feel it's a movie that is far inferior to what it should have been and yet better than what it could have been. It's neither great nor a disaster, and ultimately left me with a giant huge pit of apathy.

But "The Average Spider-man" doesn't have the same ring to it.

Ultimately, I felt it was a huge retread over the same ground the 2002 movie did, only that movie got to the point and put Spider-Man on the scene in around 30 minutes, while this one takes nearly an hour.

I REALLY hoped they'd pull an Incredible Hulk and just make the origin story a quick montage and get right to the meat of the superheroics and drama... no such luck. I mean, c'mon, nearly an HOUR re-telling us the story of Spider-Man? Again? Who on planet earth doesn't know Spider-man's origin at this point? He's an icon! And the last origin story was barely 10 years ago! I felt like it was a huge waste of time covering familiar ground, with so very, very little change.

The only reason Batman Begins worked was because no Batman film prior to this ever dedicated a film to how Batman became Batman. The 1989 began with him already working as Batman, for instance. But Spider-Man? This is almost more of a remake than a reboot. Just swap out the villains (who are genuinely interchangeable) and the love interest (Emma Stone would've been a far better Mary Jane), and it's practically the same movie, only without a lot of the charm, humor, fun, color, and quirkiness that made the Sam Raimi films endearing.

It's merely okay. Average. Decent. It is NOT "Amazing".
 

Kimarous

New member
Sep 23, 2009
2,011
0
0
This review is so full of hate and bile that I cannot accept this professionally. It screams of "I went into this hating it and I want to hate it." Bob's opinions have always been hit or miss with me, and I plan to judge the movie personally without a fanboy filter screaming "sucks sucks sucks sucks" as a guideline.
 

marscentral

Where's the Kaboom?
Dec 26, 2009
218
0
0
I'm not sure what to make of this review. It does sound awful, but Bob's histrionics over Green Lantern (which I thought was okay, not as good as I'd hoped but okay) have made me cautious about writing off a film just based on his review. Some of the other posts I've seen here have been less harsh than Bob.

I guess I can only judge it by seeing it myself.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
BX3 said:
Huh... did not see that one coming.

Though I will agree that the romance aspect was contrived and somewhat lazy, but I felt it was because they didn't spend enough time on it. Gwen, despite Peter's glaring flaws and hot-headedness halfway through the movie, was suddenly stricken with the guy. Maybe she likes bad boys? I'unno, I just I thought it was dumb.

Every other part of the review though... wow... that was. Wow.... I don't normally watch these, so someone help me out, is Bob usually this angry?
I thought that shift was kind of jarring too, especially since that was right around when he wasn't paying attention to anyone but the criminal, but it's a small flaw for me.

Bob isn't typically this angry, it's somewhat rare and limited to truly awful movies like Green Lantern, Expendables, or Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. It was really jarring to hear it here, even though superhero movies are a soft spot for him.
 

SilverHammerMan

New member
Jul 26, 2009
448
0
0
I hate to be this kind of guy, but I really can't describe how happy I am to see that I was totally right about this movie.
Also, one of Bob's complaints about the movie feeling coincidental is kind of funny since in the original comics, everything is very much not coincidental. Curt Connors is just some scientist, he doesn't know Spider-Man until later, Doc Ock is also just a guy, hell, Steve Ditko, the original writer/artist/Stan-Lee-collaborator-who-may-or-may-not-have-done-most-of-the-work, is alleged to have left the series originally because he felt it was unrealistic that the Green Goblin "just happened" to be someone Peter Parker knew.
I didn't see this on opening night and I have no plans to watch it at any point in the foreseeable future.
 

Don Reba

Bishop and Councilor of War
Jun 2, 2009
999
0
0
Oh, so I got exactly the right vibe from the overly long trailer shown before the Cave of Forgotten Dreams.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
SilverHammerMan said:
I hate to be this kind of guy, but I really can't describe how happy I am to see that I was totally right about this movie.
Also, one of Bob's complaints about the movie feeling coincidental is kind of funny since in the original comics, everything is very much not coincidental. Curt Connors is just some scientist, he doesn't know Spider-Man until later, Doc Ock is also just a guy, hell, Steve Ditko, the original writer/artist/Stan-Lee-collaborator-who-may-or-may-not-have-done-most-of-the-work, is alleged to have left the series originally because he felt it was unrealistic that the Green Goblin "just happened" to be someone Peter Parker knew.
I didn't see this on opening night and I have no plans to watch it at any point in the foreseeable future.
Don't you think shutting out all possibility of seeing a film based on one critic is a little close minded, especially to gloat about it?

Roger Ebert gave this 3.5/4 Stars, and the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are at 74%.
 

Kaiser0120

New member
Mar 11, 2010
14
0
0
Sorry, Bob, but I really think you went into this with a huge bias and a lot of unfair bitterness about some of the changes they made. That's how I feel, honestly. A lot of ridiculous hyperbole and vitriol that seeks to ignore a lot of the more effective and entertaining stuff this movie has to offer.

I mean, really: Lizardman looks as bad as that creature from Lost in Space? The costume is as bad as Catwomans? Sorry, but as someone who was dreading this movie, I have to call bull.

The crane scene was incredibly stupid though. Can't get around that. As bad as that AWFUL dancing scene, though? Have you -lost your damn mind-?
 

medv4380

The Crazy One
Feb 26, 2010
669
0
21
HumpinHop said:
Peter Parker wasn't as blatantly earnest and cliche nerd stereotype, there was more depth to him in this. He felt so much more like a real kid with believable angst who was just bullied because people are dicks, and it's just absurd to dismiss him as an emo hipster like Bob does.
So in other words you're ok if they go off and change a characters and a story and just title it the same, and you're good with it. Is Romeo and Juliet a good Romeo and Juliet if they don't die in the end? You're happy if Hamelet hugs and makes peace with his step father in the end? You're thrilled when the banker doesn't ask for his pound of flesh, and pleased when he doesn't actually try to claim it?

If you're going to make and title a film called The Amazing Spider-man then Parker has an established accepted character. His motivations and moral center are clear. Just about every version of him is very clear on that. But if you're in need of something different go to one of the alternates like 2099. I'm sure people would kill for a Spider-man 2099.

What you have are kids like yourself who think that the Anti-Hero is cool and Parker should be more angry and vengeful. If that's what you want go read Wolverine, Spawn, or even the latest Batman. If you want a Patriotic I always do the right thing no matter what go read Superman, or Cap. And if you want a Tragic Comedy you go read Spider-Man.

Keep your paws off my Spider-man you Dark Cruddy Aps

*old man yells at cloud*
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
SilverHammerMan said:
I hate to be this kind of guy, but I really can't describe how happy I am to see that I was totally right about this movie.
Also, one of Bob's complaints about the movie feeling coincidental is kind of funny since in the original comics, everything is very much not coincidental. Curt Connors is just some scientist, he doesn't know Spider-Man until later, Doc Ock is also just a guy, hell, Steve Ditko, the original writer/artist/Stan-Lee-collaborator-who-may-or-may-not-have-done-most-of-the-work, is alleged to have left the series originally because he felt it was unrealistic that the Green Goblin "just happened" to be someone Peter Parker knew.
I didn't see this on opening night and I have no plans to watch it at any point in the foreseeable future.
To be fair, Steve Ditko was hard to work with. He had walked away from many projects for less reasons and would never go back to apologize for what he did, right or wrong.

One of the artists and writers who worked with Stan and Steve said that when Ditko was dying of cancer, there was a push in the industry to have Ditko do some limited edition Spiderman artwork for charity, so he could pay for his cancer treatments. This is a project Stan Lee, who unfortunately gets cast as the villain in this story, would have backed 100 percent mind you. Ditko did not want do it because doing so would meant he needed to swallow his pride.
 

Cheery Lunatic

New member
Aug 18, 2009
1,565
0
0
HumpinHop said:
SilverHammerMan said:
I hate to be this kind of guy, but I really can't describe how happy I am to see that I was totally right about this movie.
Also, one of Bob's complaints about the movie feeling coincidental is kind of funny since in the original comics, everything is very much not coincidental. Curt Connors is just some scientist, he doesn't know Spider-Man until later, Doc Ock is also just a guy, hell, Steve Ditko, the original writer/artist/Stan-Lee-collaborator-who-may-or-may-not-have-done-most-of-the-work, is alleged to have left the series originally because he felt it was unrealistic that the Green Goblin "just happened" to be someone Peter Parker knew.
I didn't see this on opening night and I have no plans to watch it at any point in the foreseeable future.
Don't you think shutting out all possibility of seeing a film based on one critic is a little close minded, especially to gloat about it?

Roger Ebert gave this 3.5/4 Stars, and the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes are at 74%.
You are preaching to deaf ears bro.
A lot of Movie Bob's followers only listen to his opinion, as contrived and fantard as it is.
 

HumpinHop

New member
May 5, 2011
324
0
0
medv4380 said:
HumpinHop said:
Peter Parker wasn't as blatantly earnest and cliche nerd stereotype, there was more depth to him in this. He felt so much more like a real kid with believable angst who was just bullied because people are dicks, and it's just absurd to dismiss him as an emo hipster like Bob does.
So in other words you're ok if they go off and change a characters and a story and just title it the same, and you're good with it. Is Romeo and Juliet a good Romeo and Juliet if they don't die in the end? You're happy if Hamelet hugs and makes peace with his step father in the end? You're thrilled when the banker doesn't ask for his pound of flesh, and pleased when he doesn't actually try to claim it?

If you're going to make and title a film called The Amazing Spider-man then Parker has an established accepted character. His motivations and moral center are clear. Just about every version of him is very clear on that. But if you're in need of something different go to one of the alternates like 2099. I'm sure people would kill for a Spider-man 2099.

What you have are kids like yourself who think that the Anti-Hero is cool and Parker should be more angry and vengeful. If that's what you want go read Wolverine, Spawn, or even the latest Batman. If you want a Patriotic I always do the right thing no matter what go read Superman, or Cap. And if you want a Tragic Comedy you go read Spider-Man.

Keep your paws off my Spider-man you Dark Cruddy Aps

*old man yells at cloud*
I am...really unsure what I've done to offend you so much, especially to the point where you act as bull-headed stubborn as Bob in this review. There's no need to go insulting or generalizing me as a stupid kid who only likes 'angry and vengeful' heroes. There's nothing wrong with approaching Peter a different way, and I don't pidgeon hole myself into only liking Anti-Heroes, it's only when a character trope is executed well that I enjoy it.

You're talking like this butchered Spiderman instead of just telling a similar, but different story, which is exactly what I was looking for. I don't believe Superman has to be exactly one way and stick with the exact same character traits; I really enjoyed Superman: Earth One even though it tinkered with a few things. I understand if you are looking for a more rigid story, but that's just a difference between us that doesn't warrant an attack like that.