Movie Defense Force: The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Better Than Broody Gritty Wah Wah

[Iceklimber]

Minor Spoilers

It was an OK movie but many of the slapstick seems to be intended for a *very* young target audience.

My biggest complaint is the trailer though because it showcased some tiny scenes in a way that raises expectations about the movie having more of these scenes in them. For Example you see the hat dude going past The Vulture and Doctor Octopus tentacles which would imply that they are in the movie, although the movie only shows this exact scene and nothing more. The Rhino scene especially looks like a tease telling "Wanna see what's next? go watch the full movie".
However, this End Trailer scene of Spidey and Rhino *almost* start to fight as Spidey is hurling a gully cover is 1:1 the movie ending so phuck you, movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlM2CWNTQ84

 

[JimB]

No, what I've said is the entire damned movie is the evidence.

And in absence of specific examples, that means nothing. It's like when you give a book report to class and the teacher asks which part you like best; saying "All of it!" just comes off as lazy at best, or deliberately deceptive at worst. But whatever. I've already asked you three times for evidence, and I'm not dumb enough to think asking a fourth time will provoke any other response. If you are actually interested in trying to have a conversation in good faith, then I will await you providing any specific citation to back up your arguments; if you're not willing to do that, then have fun telling me I owe it to you to change my standards such that whatever you say is right because.

I don't see how I can draw any other conclusion than that you've never watched the movie and are just arguing with me for the sake of arguing.

Sure you don't.

 

[immortalfrieza]

And in absence of specific examples, that means nothing.

So I give you the evidence, all 136 minutes of it, and you dismiss it as meaning nothing. YOU don't want to put in the effort to actually watch the movie and thus get that evidence that's your problem not mine.

 

[JimB]

So I give you the evidence, all 136 minutes of it, and you dismiss it as meaning nothing.

No, you don't. I've seen the movie and given you my opinion of it. Nothing you have said tries to cast any part of it in a different light; you just insist that if I watch it a second time, then I'll totally change my mind because...magic, I guess?

You don't want to put in the effort to actually watch the movie and thus get that evidence that's your problem not mine.

That's right, I don't. I live out in the woods. The nearest rental shop is forty minutes away on the highway; I do not want to go out and buy it, even assuming Walmart (the only local store with movies) has a copy; and I cannot watch it online because I have to use an ISP that only allows me 350 megs of download per day. I am damn well not going to spend my money to go out and make your argument for you just because you want to defend a principle that people who disagree with you have a greater burden to provide evidence in support of your arguments than you do.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

The Sam Raimi Spider-Man films were aiming for a 60s style of comic movie, with a goofy, silly little man as the protagonist, a constantly screaming girlfriend/love interest, and villains that rob banks by filling up bags with dollar signs on them. It nailed that tone phenomenally and understood narrative pacing to a tee.

The Amazing Spider-Man films are aiming for... something. Like, I guess they want to be movies. Like, in general? Like sometimes they're comedies and sometimes they're droll and dark and sometimes they're creature features and sometimes they're just like romantic dramas? And like the scripts were assembled by maniacs who don't understand what a story is or how to tell it? Then it was tacked together by the actors and director who just kind of do their affable best to cover up the seams so of course they decide to ham it up.

If you qualify a good movie as "sets goals and accomplishes them," the Sam Raimi films are undeniably better films. I can't say for sure what the schizophrenic ASM films are aiming for, but I'm willing to say it didn't succeed either way. If people can dig a film despite disagreeing with its tone and direction, I think that's a sign of a film that has adequately voiced its intention. ASM doesn't.