The new Spider-Man Movie

I just watched the new spider man movie, and honestly I'm dissapointed. I'm sure like other people who will see it, I compared it to the maguire movies.

Firstly, when I heard they were doing a reboot, I figured they were going to make it apart of the marvel cinematice universe, but I found out it wasn't, since sony still had the rights.

The first half hour or so of the movie was just the origin story, which was annoying nd a bore to go over again. And it was a little weird. In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem. Then there is a short montage of him swinging around a warehouse with his abilities, testing them out, and building his webshooters etc. The maguire movie did the same but it was just paced better, and he seemed more cautious and experimental with his abilites.

Some things I did like about this movie was the fact that they had the webshooters, and it showed him making his costume, kind of, as it was montaged. In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

Also was the fact the in the maguire movie he confronted his uncles killer and is there when he accidentally falls out of the window and dies, giving peter a sense of the power and responsibility thing. However in this one, he doesn't find the killer, but decides to use his powers for good after saving a kid in a car. It just didn't feel like the emotional spark was there for him to become spider man like it was in the maguire movie. And on a side not, I did like in this movie that aunt may is more parent aged and brunette hair rather than the grandma looking one in the maguire ones.

Overall, the maguire movie just had better character development and plot development and pacing.

Of the two actors playing spider man, I prefer maguire. Although sometimes his character does seem too nerdy. Garfield was also nice and I like that he was thinner, as spider man is generally drawn with a thin build. But then I do like the maguire ones better.

It's a shame they cancelled spider man 4 to work on this disappointing one. They could've kept the same general storyline. i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

I have no desire to see this film.

I'm also going to pass on this one unless I hear some great things about it.

I just don't see the need for a Spidey reboot this soon, especially another origin story.

I want to see it anyway just because it's Spidey and he's one of my favorites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

I want to see it anyway just because it's Spidey and he's one of my favorites.

---

That. It's apparently got in the 70% rating on rotten tomatoes?

I kindof want to see it, but Tobey Maguire is stuck in my head as "the" Spider-man and I'm not super sure this new doe-eyed Peter Parker would actually be great at it. But I'm still curious!

I will say that the cancellation of Spider-man 4 was probably a blessing. 3 was a joke, and it was only downhill after Doc Ock.

Not sure how I feel about the lack of Mary Jane, but Emma Stone has to be better than Kirsten Dunst as the love interest.

Andrew Garfield is hardly 'doe-eyed' - from what I've heard it's OK, and Garfield and Stone are both meant to be very good, but I don't think I have much desire to see this.

Tobey Maguire was nerdy enough. Now they're bringing in someone even nerdier than him. I'm not a huge fan of Andrew Garfield in the role, but I'll still go see it because Spiderman comics are my favorite.

I inexplicably found myself in the cinema watching it last night (doing things just for the hell of it, I feel like I'm 17 again!), and it was pretty decent. I sort of preferred it to the 'original', which I admittedly barely remember. I enjoyed the first three quarters of it, but after all those cranes started aligning themselves towards the end in some kind of stupid 'PATH FOR SPIDEY' it was clear that toothy marine predators were starting to be leaped over. I guess that was a spoiler.

I preferred the blonde as the love interest this time over the carved-out-of-granite acting shenanigans from the previous offerings, but I don't know what they were playing at pretending that she was meant to be 17. She was definitely more interesting though.

They should have expanded on the Lizard more. His basic plot was man with one arm wants to regrow it, ends up as giant lizard, suddenly decides to kill everyone, then gets arrested. That lab in the sewer was ridiculous. What was with the giant rat cameo? What happened to the asian bloke who stole the serum? He got attacked in his car then was never mentioned again (a bit like the dude who killed Uncle Ben).

And finally, pulling out the box of eggs at the end was so laden with cheese it almost ruined the move entirely. That was a spoiler as well.

Don't have time for a detailed review or anything, but for what it's worth from a lifelong Spider-Man fan who was skeptical of a reboot; Andrew Garfield is the better Peter and Spider-Man, Emma Stone was much better than Kirsten Dunst, they both have more chemistry, and while I like Sam Raimi, it's nice to not have his trademark campiness. It might have worked 10 years ago, but the movie is better off for not having it. Anyone passing on this one is making a mistake because overall it's the better movie by quite a wide margin.

Edit: bit more time now so why not add a few things in response to the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xalibar

The first half hour or so of the movie was just the origin story, which was annoying nd a bore to go over again.

---

I actually quite enjoyed the new take on his origin, largely because it avoided the camp of having him try to wrestle to win some money and, well, it just avoided the camp in general. Seeing him make the web shooters was nice as well, though you'd think someone will eventually catch on that he's buying webbing from Oscorp.

Quote:

---

In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem.

---

(SPOILER)Except that he was passed out on that subway car if you didn't notice. Still, I don't see the big deal with skipping something which is fairly superfluous. Seeing him struggle to control his powers was more interesting than seeing him come down with a flu then wake up ripped.

Quote:

---

In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

---

Maybe I'm forgetting here, but didn't the wrestling promoter have the costume made for him? I might be confusing it for another incarnation of Spidey though. Still begs the question of what he did anytime he ripped the damn thing. Also, slight aside which is kind of related to both movies; sewing spandex is hard, and you did not do that by hand Peter. There's a reason I decided against sewing my own unitard for a Superman costume a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Also was the fact the in the maguire movie he confronted his uncles killer and is there when he accidentally falls out of the window and dies, giving peter a sense of the power and responsibility thing. However in this one, he doesn't find the killer, but decides to use his powers for good after saving a kid in a car. It just didn't feel like the emotional spark was there for him to become spider man like it was in the maguire movie.

---

The importance of the burglar wasn't in being confronted by Peter, it was in Peter realizing he could have stopped him before he killed Ben but did nothing. That's the impetus for him putting on a costume and going out there. He's a character driven by immense guilt because his own inaction caused the death of his uncle. And I honestly felt the progression in this one was more natural. (SPOILER)He starts out beating up petty thugs looking for the killer out of guilt and probably some amount of desire for revenge, but after the bridge scene realizes he could be doing a lot more.

Quote:

---

Of the two actors playing spider man, I prefer maguire.

---

Couldn't disagree more. Maguire's Peter Parker was good, despite hamming it up on a few occasion's, but his Spider-Man never felt right. There were no quips, no one-liners, no feigned cockiness to try and keep his enemies off guard. He was just nerdy Peter Parker in a dorky costume. In an actual fight, Spidey would be talking your ear off and they never had that right with the original movies. Hell, even in the Spider-Man games where Maguire voiced the character, his delivery fell flat. He may have done a good enough job of playing Peter (though after watching some of Spider-Man 2 on TV on Saturday I'd argue his performance is quite dated and doesn't play as well as nostalgia would like me to believe), but he wasn't the best Spider-Man. He just had the distinction of being in one of the first super hero movies in a decade or more to not completely suck.

Quote:

---

i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

---

I have lot's of love and respect for Sam Raimi, but those original Spider-Man movies have not aged as well as we'd like to think. Certainly better than the likes of Tim Burton's Batman movies, but even less than ten years later those movies are too campy, and just don't hold up as well now when compared to the likes of Iron Man, Avengers, or the Nolan Batman films. For the time they came out they were amazing pieces of superhero cinema, and we can almost certainly thank them and X-Men for every great superhero movie that came after, but the bar has been raised so much since then that if they were going to try and do something Spider-Man related they really needed a reboot to let them start fresh without being tied to what Raimi did which would have worked against them if you ask me. Especially with how reviled Spider-Man 3 was by the general public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Andrew Garfield is hardly 'doe-eyed' - from what I've heard it's OK, and Garfield and Stone are both meant to be very good, but I don't think I have much desire to see this.

---

He looks doe-eyed to me! Doe-eyed and baby-faced, which isn't how I'd prefer Spider-man but of course I'm just judging him from the previews and posters I've seen.

Just so you lot know, if you think the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is great it's cause they are actually dating. THE MORE YOU KNOW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Just so you lot know, if you think the chemistry between Garfield and Stone is great it's cause they are actually dating. THE MORE YOU KNOW.

---

It helps that they can both act too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Don't have time for a detailed review or anything, but for what it's worth from a lifelong Spider-Man fan who was skeptical of a reboot; Andrew Garfield is the better Peter and Spider-Man, Emma Stone was much better than Kirsten Dunst, they both have more chemistry, and while I like Sam Raimi, it's nice to not have his trademark campiness. It might have worked 10 years ago, but the movie is better off for not having it. Anyone passing on this one is making a mistake because overall it's the better movie by quite a wide margin.

---

I do suppose both maguire and dunst did seem kind of flat. Both garfiedls and stone were more animated an lively. What campiness are you talking about?

Quote:

---

I actually quite enjoyed the new take on his origin, largely because it avoided the camp of having him try to wrestle to win some money and, well, it just avoided the camp in general. Seeing him make the web shooters was nice as well, though you'd think someone will eventually catch on that he's buying webbing from Oscorp.

---

What is the camp? And it wasn't entirely a new take on his origin, just presented differently. Him wrestling for money is what he originally did in the comics.

Quote:

---

In the maguire movies he actually gets sick and nauseous because of the bite. In this movie he gets bit and then has his powers no problem.

(SPOILER)Except that he was passed out on that subway car if you didn't notice. Still, I don't see the big deal with skipping something which is fairly superfluous. Seeing him struggle to control his powers was more interesting than seeing him come down with a flu then wake up ripped.

---

The maguire movies did have him struggle with his powers. And yes I did see him on the subway passed out, or sleeping. And the flu showed his body adjusting to the changes.

Quote:

---

In the first one people commented on the fact that maguire drew the standard spidey costume then showed up at the arena with what looked like gym clothes. However, I always wondered where he got his actual costume done, particularly since it had rubber lines for webs and such and just seemed more prefessionally done, than parker would've been able to do.

Maybe I'm forgetting here, but didn't the wrestling promoter have the costume made for him? I might be confusing it for another incarnation of Spidey though. Still begs the question of what he did anytime he ripped the damn thing. Also, slight aside which is kind of related to both movies; sewing spandex is hard, and you did not do that by hand Peter. There's a reason I decided against sewing my own unitard for a Superman costume a few years ago.

---

No he didn't have it made for him. He just had it.

Quote:

---

i don't understand why they even needed to do a reboot.

I have lot's of love and respect for Sam Raimi, but those original Spider-Man movies have not aged as well as we'd like to think. Certainly better than the likes of Tim Burton's Batman movies, but even less than ten years later those movies are too campy, and just don't hold up as well now when compared to the likes of Iron Man, Avengers, or the Nolan Batman films. For the time they came out they were amazing pieces of superhero cinema, and we can almost certainly thank them and X-Men for every great superhero movie that came after, but the bar has been raised so much since then that if they were going to try and do something Spider-Man related they really needed a reboot to let them start fresh without being tied to what Raimi did which would have worked against them if you ask me. Especially with how reviled Spider-Man 3 was by the general public.

---

The spider man movies help set the bar of what the iron man, avengers and nolan batman films could be when it came to storytelling and character interaction. They were more inspirational and awe inspiring. Its the garfield movie that falls short of achieving this. It just seemed choppy and underdone. The old films are still fine even after all these years and hold up perfectly well when compared with them. Spider man 3 may have been worse than the previous ones, but it was no need to reboot the series. Also, with the old ones it felt like an entire world was there, whereas in this one the most people i saw was the 10 or so people on the bridge running away. And again what was campy?

Regardless, I think it was too soon for a reboot. it may have been 10 years since the first one, but it was only 5 since the last entry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xalibar

What is the camp? And it wasn't entirely a new take on his origin, just presented differently. Him wrestling for money is what he originally did in the comics.

---

Corny might be a better choice of words in retrospect. Hell, Willem Dafoe spends half the first movie hamming it up. It's part of Sam Raimi's style honestly, and as much as I love the guy, that doesn't really fit or play as well for me anymore.

As to the origin story, I never said it was new. I did say I liked the presentation of it quite a bit more than in the original. And I'm fully aware that in the comics he originally wrestled for money. I'm also fully aware that that was originally done in the 60's and it's more than a little silly now, and I'm glad it wasn't there.

Quote:

---

The maguire movies did have him struggle with his powers. And yes I did see him on the subway passed out, or sleeping. And the flu showed his body adjusting to the changes.

---

They had him struggle with his powers for a scene or two maybe, then he's basically an expert and doesn't think anything of the fact that he can now climb walls, lift cars, and shoot webbing from his wrists. The entire flu scene is rather superfluous anyway. His body adapting to the changes isn't all that interesting. Peter not understanding what happened right away and basically freaking out afterwards it.

Quote:

---

The spider man movies help set the bar of what the iron man, avengers and nolan batman films could be when it came to storytelling and character interaction. They were more inspirational and awe inspiring.

---

I never said they didn't do all of this. I did say they don't hold up as well anymore. Just look at the Tim Burton Batman films as a point of comparison. For the time they were probably the best examples of a Superhero movie that wasn't the original Superman from the 70's. They set a new bar which no other comic book movies would surpass until Blade. They also really suck in retrospect. Now I'm not saying the Sam Raimi movies outright suck, but they were kind of cheesy and corny, and they aren't as good as the likes of Iron Man, the Avengers, and certainly not the Nolan Batman series thus far.

And that's to say nothing of their complete butchering of a pretty pivotal character in Spider-Man's life like Gwen Stacey, or the little mishandling of Venom, and how utterly uninteresting Harry Osborn was by the 3rd movie. If a reboot let's them fix this stuff (which it already is with Gwen at least), then I'm fine with that.

Quote:

---

Regardless, I think it was too soon for a reboot. it may have been 10 years since the first one, but it was only 5 since the last entry.

---

I might have agreed with you when I saw the original trailer, but honestly, the movie was just done better than Sam Raimi's efforts, as good as they were. The acting was better, the characters were more true to their origins in the comics, and it let's everyone move on and forget where the series left off.

The Tim Burton Batman films are both great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

The Tim Burton Batman films are both great.

---

Except for the fact that they're really not. Though Jack Nicholson does an excellent job of playing Jack Nicholson.

Honestly, I find the original film completely unwatchable now except to make fun of it. Watching it makes the comic book geek in me want to die if only so I don't murder Tim Burton for having Batman kill several times over the course of the movie.

Oh my god I had a big post typed up and then I hit quote and lost the whole smurfing thing augh augh augh. Gist: Toby MacGuire was to nerdy to play Spider-Man, but nerdy enough to play Peter Parker. This new incarnation of Peter Parker is less nerdy and I think that's ok. Having Gwen Stacy in there helped make the origin stuff less boring, but I'd still prefer a reboot that just assumes you know who Spider-Man is and doesn't have to explain it to you in so much detail.

This movie wins for having the only Stan Lee cameo in the history of Stan Lee cameos that didn't make me want to reach into the screen and strangle him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old Manus

They should have expanded on the Lizard more. His basic plot was man with one arm wants to regrow it, ends up as giant lizard, suddenly decides to kill everyone, then gets arrested. That lab in the sewer was ridiculous. What was with the giant rat cameo? What happened to the asian bloke who stole the serum? He got attacked in his car then was never mentioned again (a bit like the dude who killed Uncle Ben).

---

I thought it was pretty obvious that, on top of turning him into a giant lizard, the serum drove Connors insane. The giant rat was there to show Peter that the serum turns things into monsters. I think the Indian dude hit his head and died in the car, though I'm not sure and they really should have made it more obvious if that's the case. And the guy who killed Uncle Ben not getting caught gives Spider-Man another reason to keep fighting crime. Peter still had the police sketch pinned to his bulletin board at the end of the movie for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

This movie wins for having the only Stan Lee cameo in the history of Stan Lee cameos that didn't make me want to reach into the screen and strangle him.

---

That Stan Lee cameo was amazing. Though I feel I must add that his cameo in the first Hulk movie wasn't as blatantly obvious/cheese stuffed as many of his other ones. Not nearly as entertaining as this one mind you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Murder

I'm also going to pass on this one unless I hear some great things about it.

I just don't see the need for a Spidey reboot this soon, especially another origin story.

---

I feel the same way, especially when I have The Avengers and Batman movies for geeking out this summer. If it was the only comic book movie coming out this summer, then maybe I would go see it.

Eh, I kind of want to see it simply because there's nothing else out to see right now. That, and I never saw any of the other Spiderman films.

A reboot for Spiderman seems almost as unnecessary as The Incredible Hulk though.

It was an alright flick.

It was quite good but then again I barely remember the other spiderman movies. Most of the things I think have already been said, though I think by not catching his uncle's killer it shows he has a stronger resolve to fight crime for the right reasons rather than as a personal vendetta. If he had caught him then went on the fight crime for the right reasons, just because he was done with what he was doing, like he did in the other movies, it doesnt show that he places duty above his personal need for revenge. Either that or theyre leaving it open for a sequel.

Some nitpicky moments:
(SPOILER)
The scene when the bully accidentally knocks over the girls paint can: Why was that girl painting on a basketball court in the first place? She was asking for it.

When Gwen pulls the alarm to get everyone out of the building: Seriously? an alarm where you have to input a 5 digit code then pull the alarm? Whoever thought of that needs to figure out the meaning of the word 'emergency'. Not only is it inefficient, if the touch screen was somehow smashed in an emergency, everyone in the building could die.

When the lizard attacked the highschool: They were all out in the hall, meaning they were in between classes, and the lizard was able to mix two beakers of chemicals sitting on the lab bench, which means someone forgot to clear up after the lab and just decided to leave two apparently dangerous chemicals lying around. I know even my most relaxed chemistry teachers in highschool wouldnt stand for that tit.


edit: just rewatched the first spiderman movie, never realised he was the guy from Pleasantville. I cant say which is better but the new one is funnier. The old one deffinitely does have a corny superhero movie feel to it but thats not really a bad thing depending on the mood youre in when you watch it.

I honestly think it wasn't that bad. I liked this Peter Parker versus the old one.

There were many flaws in it of course like the character development, but the film makers probably thought everyone should know most of Spidey's story. But at the same time, this is a whole new movie.

I have little doubt that I'll like this version of Spidey better than the original, but the problem is that the original was still pretty good and it is still fresh in my mind. If there was no Spider-Man movie then I would be at the midnight release of this movie. It's just that I've seen Spidey's origin story done too many times to want to sit through another retelling of it.

I'm interested enough to want to see it but not for 13 dollars. Maybe if it comes to the cheaper theater for $5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

A reboot for Spiderman seems almost as unnecessary as The Incredible Hulk though.

---

I have to disagree with you on this because apparently in six more films the Hulk will be portrayed by Mark smurfing Ruffalo, and that is something I can get behind because he was an amazing Bruce Banner.

But this is a thread about Spider-man, so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

A reboot for Spiderman seems almost as unnecessary as The Incredible Hulk though.

---

I have to disagree with you on this because apparently in six more films the Hulk will be portrayed by Mark smurfing Ruffalo, and that is something I can get behind because he was an amazing Bruce Banner.

But this is a thread about Spider-man, so.

---

I prefer my Hulk of the Norton variety. I will not watch Avengers ever...and that's part of the reason.

Saw it, liked it, but I also understand why people have the problems that they do with it.

However... *takes nervous breath*

I really never got into the Spiderman movies of last decade. Sure, I enjoyed the first two and thought the third one was trash like most people, but at the same time I didn't go crazy over them. Plus, aspects of the other movies really, really didn't age well. Some of the acting was cheesier than I remembered, and while I understand the other movies were made awhile ago, some CGI looks silly too.

I like how they shuffled up the origin story in this one, and if they continue the series I will probably end up seeing it.

I also like Andrew Garfield better as Peter Parker/Spider man. Again, this is because of my wishy washy attitude toward the other films. Eh, maybe Spider Man 3 left a really mad taste in my mouth too.

Then you are going to miss some awesome albeit over the top trout.

I'm pretty much going to defer to Vivi22 and Sephex here. The Amaziong Spider Man is just a way better film than the originals, partly because it's less campy, mostly because Garfield is head over heels a better Peter Parker/Spider Man than Toby was, and Emma Stone did a great job as Gwen Stacy. The fight scenes are just better, the web slinging is better, the dialogue is better, and Spider Man actually has fun being Spider Man unlike MacGuire's Spidey who has two emotions: Crying and awkward geekiness.

The originals have not aged well and the acting by Dunst and MacGuire is often sappy and over the top. It's almost cartoonish watching it now. The only thing Spider Man 1 has over Amazing Spider Man is a better villain. The Lizard was never my fave Spidey villain but the movie does try to build up Norman Osborne in the background, so I am really looking forward to the next film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

A reboot for Spiderman seems almost as unnecessary as The Incredible Hulk though.

---

I have to disagree with you on this because apparently in six more films the Hulk will be portrayed by Mark smurfing Ruffalo, and that is something I can get behind because he was an amazing Bruce Banner.

But this is a thread about Spider-man, so.

---

I prefer my Hulk of the Norton variety. I will not watch Avengers ever...and that's part of the reason.

---

This is just daft - you're not even going to watch a fantastic movie partially because Edward Norton fell out with a film studio? And if you hadn't heard, Mark Ruffalo (a very good actor) is great in The Avengers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

A reboot for Spiderman seems almost as unnecessary as The Incredible Hulk though.

---

I have to disagree with you on this because apparently in six more films the Hulk will be portrayed by Mark smurfing Ruffalo, and that is something I can get behind because he was an amazing Bruce Banner.

But this is a thread about Spider-man, so.

---

I prefer my Hulk of the Norton variety. I will not watch Avengers ever...and that's part of the reason.

---

This is just daft - you're not even going to watch a fantastic movie partially because Edward Norton fell out with a film studio? And if you hadn't heard, Mark Ruffalo (a very good actor) is great in The Avengers.

---

I said that was part of it.

No, I'm not going to watch The Avengers because I think it looks stupid, and the only superhero I like from that movie is Thor. I did like the Hulk when played by Edward Norton. But I really can't stand Mark Ruffalo.

Yeah, I can see how it looks stupid and, say, The Amazing Spider-Man does not.

The Amazing Spiderman doesn't look stupid to me. It just looks boring.

Which begs the question, are there any of these comic book movies that you like?

I do, actually.

Just because I am not interested in two entries into a genre doesn't mean I dislike the whole genre.

Oh please, Sam. This is coming from the girl who religiously loves the cruddy dubbed version of sailor moon.

The Avengers is awesome merely cause Joss Weadon did it. The man who created Buffy, Angel, Firefly! It's a very funny movie and not seeing it because Norton isn't in it is silly. How can you say you dislike any of the films if you haven't seen it? That's like saying orange juice is disgusting even though you've never drank it. It just looks so ORANGE. Maybe i'm just of the opinion that you need to watch/read/listen to whatever before you form a baseless opinion on it. I have sat through the Twilight movies for this reason, and read the book. If I don't like something, I need a good reason not a flippant one like "it looks dumb."

I almost went and saw this movie the other night but my friend decided we needed to see Ted instead. I was happy not to spend the extra cash on 3D. So whatev. I'll eventually see this movie.

Okay, everyone in this thread needs to learn to read.

A. I did not say that I wouldn't see The Avengers ONLY because Norton wasn't in it. Christ.

B. I never said I KNEW I wouldn't like the movie. Only that it looks stupid, and therefore I have no interest in seeing it. I think smurfing anything with Kristin Stewart looks horrible too, but I don't have to go see it to know that I don't want to see it.

And I am perfectly aware the dubbed version of Sailor Moon is awful.

Obviously you can't read either because I addressed both your points of it looks dumb and ed norton. Sooooooo :D

Adventureland and Into the Wild are both pretty good, and both have Kristin Stewart. Just saying.

Wow Tifa's Boobs you didn't go to see The Avengers because Ed Norton is in it? Well he's not actually in it so you can probably go watch it...

So, Freya, you're saying unless I actually go see something, I'm not allowed to say I don't want to see something, because I think it looks bad? That's dumb.

I just don't see the point in spending money or time in something I'm not interested in. Why am I not interested in it? Because I think it looks stupid, yes. I never said the movie was actually stupid. I haven't seen it, and I probably never will. But if someone asks me why I don't want to see it, I'll say why.

It's the same as me saying that the new Spiderman looks really boring to me, and I have no interest in seeing it, although I grew up on Spiderman crap.

Yes that's exactly what i'm saying. I'm saying you cannot chime in on how something is good or bad if you have no experience with it. It's why they say people who don't vote in the elections have no right to complain about the president.

Your "why" is baseless and flippant. It reminds me of a kid not doing something just cause. "I don't wanna play with jimmy, he wears tall socks when he wears shorts. What a weirdo." Your reasoning is merely cosmetic. THAT'S my point. If you don't want to see it then don't see it. But coming in here all "it looks dumb" or "it looks boring" is just you voicing your glib opinion. So shoo shoo!

I saw The Amazing Spiderman last Friday night & thought it was a lot better than even Spiderman 2 from the previous trilogy. Marc Webb's interpretation & Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spiderman reminds me of the 90's cartoon I grew up watching & loved. Glad I watched it in 2D thought because the 3D was annoying during the Avengers.

If you want some advice Tifa's Boobs, go see both. Avengers is worth it for the laugh alone & Spiderman just to erase the ills of the previous trilogy from your brain. Not going purely based on "how they look" means you're missing on 2 solid superheros films. But I get the feeling there is an element of "oh just can't be arsed" in not wanting to see them & you're entitled to do that, god knows I've not gone to a few movies for the same reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

Marc Webb's interpretation & Andrew Garfield's portrayal of Spiderman reminds me of the 90's cartoon I grew up watching & loved..

---

That's the best endorsement I've seen yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

I saw The Amazing Spiderman last Friday night & thought it was.

---

I saw, therefore it was
an existential review by Shattered Dreamer

Did I post about this yet? It was a decent flick. The lizard is kind of meh as a villain because he loses all semblance of his character before the transformation, but other than that I liked it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rantz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shattered Dreamer

I saw The Amazing Spiderman last Friday night & thought it was.

---

I saw, therefore it was
an existential review by Shattered Dreamer

Did I post about this yet? It was a decent flick. The lizard is kind of meh as a villain because he loses all semblance of his character before the transformation, but other than that I liked it.

---

The above quote shows I really shouldn't be posting on EoFF when I'm at work :lol:

Half in the Bag: The Amazing Spider-Man |

Even though that review disagrees with my opinion, I felt like they made great points. WARNING: Swearing included. Also, if you don't watch the show regularly, you won't get the opening or ending sketch, but they don't take long. If you have a decent chunk of time to spare, give the review a watch! It had me laughing pretty hard at various points.

I just saw this movie yesterday, and I have to say that I'm quite disappointed with it. As what was said in the first post in this thread, I will have to agree. I do have to say that I still enjoyed the movie, and I love the Stan Lee cameo, (SPOILER)minding his own business listening to classical music while Spider-man and Lizard fight and cause a big mess in the school library. I hope if there is to be a sequel to this (as expected), it will do better.

Didn't mind it, thought it was good fun. The relationship between Peter and Gwen was kind of weird at times because I think he was almost too much of a dork, but I cannot believe how happy I was to see the typical "problem" that Spiderman faces (not being able to share his identity with anyone) overcome early and his whole (SPOILER)the best kinds of promises are the ones you break. It was just a nice change and so while there were a few little things that irked me throughout, I overall liked this "cooler" Spiderman.

I haven't been able to get hardly any work done today with a headache, so I think I'm going to take tonight off to go see this. As much as I love Spider-Man and I thought the original series was mostly terrible, I do think it's too soon for a reboot. However, overall the movie looks much more promising than the last series, so I'm going to try to keep an open mind.

I went in with fairly middling expectations, but this movie is pretty fantastic. It's unfortunate that its proximity to the earlier crappy trilogy has put off so many people, because this was far above and beyond the last series. True, it's not a Batman & Robin to Batman Begins difference, but it's a major improvement. Better Spider-Man, better acting, and much, much better writing.

I'm not sure why people are complaining about the Lizard. Sure, he doesn't have the comic book history of other villains, but he was very well done in this movie. His story was a little cramped, but that's pretty much my complaint with every movie. It's tough to cram things into a 2 hour story.

I like how they got rid of some of the campier parts of the origin story. Like the wrestling gig. And I thought that Ben's death was handled great. And most importantly, Peter made his own web shooters. No more of that web randomly coming out of his wrists. That was so stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

I have no desire to see this film.

---

Have also watched this movie and Like to get the characters and Story so much..

it was ok

however

(SPOILER) american working men helping spiderman by moving their rigs onto the street, with an american flag backdropped somewhere in there; i thought this was gone after the last trilogy but i guess not. i'm all for community involvement but did this really help anyone.


also,

"HE'S NOT ALONE." SHOTGUN SHOT

i just
i grimaced



other than that i really liked the chemistry between andrew and emma, i guess they are dating irl? so that prob helped. the style was better, and there were many tips of the hat to various other films, but i felt the writing took a hit in the second half (and i liked the first half just fine).

i am hoping this will be the batman begins for this series

i like garfield much better as parker, but the stuttering nerves could be toned down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

I have no desire to see this film.

---

I really loved this movie. I'll agree it's no Batman Begins, but it's still damn good.

Theres a few plot points that are just awkwardly dropped, but nothing big. Probably the stupidest thing was the Crane Scene near the end. That's up there with Superman spinning the world backwards to reverse time.

But it's one scene, I'll let it slide.

If they gave the movie like, 15 more minutes virtually ever problem could have been fixed. A bit more story on Lizard and a couple brief scenes to handle some of the dropped plot points, and BAM!

But yes, the fact Parker is actually smack talking the whole fight immediately makes this movie better. His quick wit even comes up in the fights constantly.

Spider man was never one of the stronger super heros, and really most of his remembered villains are more powerful. Spiderman wins his fight because he's a planner and quick on his feet. He can adjust to situations on the fly, using his wits to out due his opponents.

This movie clearly builds Lizard as the more powerful of the two, by a good gap. Yet Parker getting the better of him is believable because of this.

I agree with, well, basically everyone else that has ever seen the movie that the crane scene was unbearably stupid and corny. Whoever wrote that part should be shot. But nothing comes close to Superman reversing time by making the Earth spin backwards.

Is it better or worse than Spiderman 3?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I agree with, well, basically everyone else that has ever seen the movie that the crane scene was unbearably stupid and corny. Whoever wrote that part should be shot. But nothing comes close to Superman reversing time by making the Earth spin backwards.

---

Okay, the superman moment is clearly worse, but this movie makes a damn good effort.

(SPOILER)I mean come on, within 1 minute the entirety of the New York City Crane operating force manage to get to their cranes, get briefed on what to do, and then put the cranes in place. This is tit you'd have to call in a guy like the Flash to do.

Edit: It's way better then Spiderman 3.

The movie overall is legitimately good, and significantly better than the last trilogy. Anyone who enjoys Spider-Man but just refuses to see this movie on some sort of principle is only missing out.

I won't see it because I really don't care about superheroes in general.

Well, then stay the hell away from this movie. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

I prefer my Hulk of the Norton variety. I will not watch Avengers ever...and that's part of the reason.

---

I just keep finding more and more about you that sucks.

S'alright. I enjoyed it, which was more than I was expecting from it.

Although, I was forever unnerved by how the Lizard looked like a goomba taken right from the Super Mario Bros. Movie. Deeply, deeply distracting. :|

I didn't get why Dr Connor goes from argh must stop that buy from experimenting on vets to argh must turn everyone to argh must save peter parker.

Andrew Garfield did an amazing job though as well as Emma stone. This was a far better movie than the other ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

I didn't get why Dr Connor goes from argh must stop that buy from experimenting on vets to argh must turn everyone to argh must save peter parker.

---

That crap made him go crazy. Just like the mouse who became a monster and ate the other one. :(

It was better than I thought it would be, I quite enjoyed it. It was good fun! I thought the villain was a little bit ehhh and lacking in true calculating menace, but it wasn't terrible. Definitely better than the previous trilogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

This movie wins for having the only Stan Lee cameo in the history of Stan Lee cameos that didn't make me want to reach into the screen and strangle him.

---

I liked his cameo as Hef in Iron Man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

(SPOILER)
Seriously? an alarm where you have to input a 5 digit code then pull the alarm?

---

Probably a building high-tech enough that real emergencies would be auto-detected and set off alarms by default.

Tifa's Boobs, Shorty, DMKA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tifa's Boobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

A reboot for Spiderman seems almost as unnecessary as The Incredible Hulk though.

---

I have to disagree with you on this because Mark smurfing Ruffalo was an amazing Bruce Banner.

---

I prefer my Hulk of the Norton variety. I will not watch Avengers ever...and that's part of the reason.

---

DM: Hulk was not good.
Shorty: Mark Ruffalo is okay. I will continue to watch six more Hulk films because I like Hulk, but I'll be totally content if Ruffalo gets replaced.
Boobs: Norton was also my favorite Hulk. But watch Avengers... or Hulk will smash you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

The Lizard was never my fave Spidey villain but the movie does try to build up Norman Osborne in the background, so I am really looking forward to the next film.

---

I agree with that sentiment. Lizard was never a particularly appealing villain. I would even prefer Shocker or Scorpion over the Lizard, he's that bad. Norman Osborne got some promising buildup? That's awesome. I haven't seen this film. Flipped a coin between this and Total Recall. Came up heads for Spidey. I went to Total Recall anyway.
You know what? I never saw Batman Begins in theater either. No regrets. I own it and it's good, but not enough IMO to see in theater. I went and saw both sequels though and I'll likely repeat this process with Amazing.