I know it's blip but my god that verizon add is annoying as fuck
LET'S FIND OUT, TOOODD!
I desperately want to punch that guy in the fucking mouth.
OH I LIKE THAT LET ME SEE YOU TWERK WOW I LIKE YOU
Better data... yeah... I have to say........
COME ON TODD
I thought this was about the looping music on the Mother's Day one. Fuck everything, I want to kill when that ad comes on.
They both suck. The Mother's Day one it is that damn repetitive music while COME ON TOD is just watching what some douchebag thinks is comedy.
Get into adblock.
Then the wait is longer, plus Brad won't get as much money if that happens
Ugh I'm sorry Brad and company but I don't get the appeal of AMS at all. I guess maybe I prefer the McGuire Spiderman films because of nostalgia, plus I love Sam Raimi's directing style way more. But AMS was just a chore to sit through, plus Garfield's Spiderman was just unlikable and obnoxious, and yeah it was boring and generic as hell. Plus say what you will about the previous films, if McGuire didn't do it for you at least the actors playing the villains were awesome especially Alfred Molina in the second film. Also those films didn't take themselves so damn seriously, in which the acting didn't come across as jilted or forced.
Sorry I meant "stilted" not "jilted"
I agree, Alfred Molina was fucking awesome.
The appeal of AMS was that it wasn't Spiderman 3. Spiderman 3 was a mess of a movie, so a reboot made sense. Personally, I think Garfield played a good Spiderman, but not a good Peter Parker, if that makes sense.
At leas I had a good laugh in some parts or Spiderman 3, AMS was just dull, And I get what you're saying about Garfield on his Spiderman, but his Peter Parker sucked ass. Plus these movies will always suck b/c they don't have JK Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. Now he was fucking awesome. Talk about a guy who was born to play a role.
If you laughed with spiderman 3then you will laugh with Batman and Robin. In fact I laughed more with ASM and the scene of car thief because I laughed with spiderman and not of Spiderman.
J.K Simons only was the buffon of the trilogy of Raimi never was the tru J.K simons.
I'm with Irving on this reboot series. I loved Raimi's Part 2, and his first is better than the reboot.
This had some great moments. But they were just moments. The other 2 plus hours was a colossal, awful, tonal mess. This was just an empty studio product. No art, no actual story, just a soulless corporate product.
Couldn't agree more. This is one of the first spiderman things to make me legitimately depressed. Not just because it was bad, but because it just doesn't give a shit about movie making. It just wants to make a product.
Yes! Thank you Brad!
I kinda have to disagree with you guys on quite a bit here.
The 'didn't show the darkness' part doesn't really fit the bill. He was actually an angry guy at the start until spiderman saves him (making the only connection he has). Later, when he is confronted by smyth, he imagines himself strangling smyth for claiming to be spiderman. Basically, he was unhinged but his hero worship of spiderman was the only thing keeping him from going postal. Then in time square, it isn't just the sniper shot that breaks him it's the fact that he finally had everyone's attention but then spider man got all the screens (stealing the brief lime light he had) that drives him over the edge. It's actually established mental issues that can lead hero worship to become murderous.
Also, the song is Paranoia, and it's a dub step song made for the movie by hans zimmer. It's actually pretty awesome.
As for why they bring in electro, who is the main villian here, is that they want to bring in the sinister 6 for the final movie and this is their way of getting the strongest villian out of the way (which honestly would over shadow the other villians). This is also the reason why they don't show the end of the ryhno fight.
As for the 'have him despondent for the first third of the third movie', yeah, no. It would have just resulted in another cluttered movie in the third. Also, there won't be mary jane. There's a reason she hasn't come up, they're avoiding her like the plague. The love interest for the third movie is felicia, who will be showing up as black cat.
Just an addendum for those that say there is no tone or story. Sure there is. The over arching theme and tone of the story is failure and loss. He failed Gwen's dad and it haunts him. He failed Electro and it creates a monster. He failed to help harry and it creates a monster. He failed to save Gwen, etc etc etc. The whole purpose of the movie was summed up in her speech and that's why they didn't end at the cemetery. It wasn't that he failed, it's that he keeps trying. Having him trudge around for another hour would have served no real purpose.
As for the rom com comments. While it's fair play to call it that, I do find it amusing that they call it that, and yet he says spiderman 2 was the best spiderman movie ever. That was just as bad. Percentage of screen time wise, spiderman 2 probably put more stock into the romantic angles than this movie did. But cognitive dissidence is a wonderful thing.
The movie was far from perfect, don't get me wrong, but it was better put together than how you described it.
"But cognitive dissidence is a wonderful thing."
Oh look, we have a debate club badass over here.
Yeah first paragraph sums up what I thought about Electro, I think he probably had more subdued, yet apparent darkness than Carey's Nygma. But again it wasnt handled as well as it could have been.
song is titled 'my enemy' on the soundtrack.
also Mary Jane has been cast and was even in the movie but they edited her out, she's confirmed for ASM3
Never knew she was cast but all talk says she's not the intended love interest because they don't want to retread that ground.
Also, I didn't exactly disagree with the edward nygma part, I thought the same on the way home. However, I found him both a mix of him and the 'I believe you have my stapler' guy. Who, spoiler alert, burns down the building at the end.
I thought the same about this movie. It's a wonderful rom-com trapped in a clustered and uninspired mess of a superhero movie. I hate that, after the Avengers movie, every studio with a comic license is spending more running time teasing their next movies than developing the story of what we're watching right now (that's why they added the stupid Rhino cameo and poor Osborn subplot, they already confirmed that Sony will make a Sinister Six movie).
Here's the deal about that X-Men sequence. Another piece of publicity shoved right in our faces: http://variety.com/2014/film/news/the-secret-deal-behind-spider-man-2-plugging-the-x-men-exclusive-1201158216/
Yeah Marvel has them running scared
I honestly thought the movie was pretty damn good, Dane DeHaan could've used more time as Harry Osborne. It could've stood to cut Jamie Foxx, but I liked his performance ok. It's far from perfect, but I wouldn't mind watching it again.
I hate the new series with a passion. Sam Rami appealed to the older fans of the series whereas Sony has hired gun Marc Webb appeals to whatever's hip with the kids these days. Voice what you will about the new movies, personally I liked them, but Sam Rami's films at least had character.
Errata: "Voice what you will about the new movies," should be "Voice what you will about the older movies,".
The Raimi movies appealed to the same demo this movie was designed to appeal to which is teens. The Webb movies are flawed, but Spider-man comes off as Spider-man not a whiny puss. Raimi's movies had the villains going for them, but their characterization of Spider-man was awful. He wasn't witty or clever, he was just a sad sack who ended up with powers. At least Garfield's Spider-man delivers the Spidey quips properly and has an infectious charm. You could edit some scenes from Raimi's trilogy out of context and Peter looks like a serial killer.
I do not buy that Sam Rami's movies were "just for teens". The tone and style of those movies could appeal for teenagers but also bring in an older audience. Amazing Spider-man looks like it is bait for millennials.
Did you actually read the Spider-man comics from the original Steve Ditko era? "a sad sack who ended up with powers" >is< Spider-man. He is the guy who has to deal with a crappy life who gets this responsibility landed to him.
Let us talk about the quipping for a second. This is a criticism of Rami's filsm I have never gotten. There was more than enough humor in those movies already, and I do need to see my protagonist making ridiculous out-of-place jokes in the middle of a fight scene on top of that. Making jokes is not essential to Spider-man's character. It's fluff. Andrew Garfield is a fine actor but these quips, especially with that voice he gives the character, are groan-inducing and do nothing for me.
Speaking of cringe-worthy, With clever editing you can make anyone come off as anything. For further evidence look up how reality TV works. Saying you can take the pieces of one work and make a completely different work does not mean the first is the second.
Overall I enjoyed this movie. Yeah it has some missteps, but an fun experience.
I hated the first one....Lizard looked like a Goomba from the Super Mario movies.
The ONE thing it did right was cast people who looked the age(high school).
The lizar was based in the lizar of Steve Ditko.
For me, it felt like a trade paperback rather than a two or three issue arc like previous Spider-Man flicks. For that I was more forgiving of the multiple stories going on at once. Also, I think you guys meant Wilson Fisk when you mentioned Alistair Smythe. I didn't have a problem with them "seemingly" killing off NO. This is a comic book movie. You never see a body. He's almost certainly not dead. Was that an actual song playing during Electro's scene or merely his psychosis? I took it more as the latter. In any case, I've liked Andrew Garfield so much better than doe-eyed Tobey for his charisma and his actual ability to quip, unlike his predecessor as you guys mentioned. Yeah, it's an obvious lead-in to the eventual Sinister Six film, but it seems to me Matt Webb and the producers were going more for the story film made successful in, say, Game of Thrones, and I can't say I blame them for it, but it's a ballsy move to be sure.
Been a long time since I commented, but I thought I should add something. The Dark Knight? The Dark Knight had actually three villains in it. Scarecrow just for a brief cameo to set up what happened since the first movie to The Joker to Two Face.
So would Captain America: the Winter Soldier count with the "more than one villain" thing? Because it had Batroc, the Winter Soldier, pre-Crossbones Rumlow, Alexander Pierce, and Zola. However, I thought Cap 2 handled their villains much better than the way Amazing Spider-Man 2 did with theirs.
Completely agreed with everything you just said.
-Batroc felt like a more solid opening bout than Rhino.
-Although he was just the main goon in the movie, Crossbones is set up well enough to hate Captain America in the sequels, unlike what they did to Harry here.
-Although it benefitted from beng set up in the previous movies, HYDRA's pressence (Zola, Pierce, etc) works so much better than this whole "Oscorp is evil" thing.
-Winter Soldier vs Electro as villans…nuff said.
Man, did I hate this movie and I'm not a huge spiderman fan.
Harry Osborne treats his secretary better than Peter treats Aunt May. Peter cares more about his missing father(not his mom, only the dad) than he does about the mother figure that has been there.
Peter has almost completely forgotten about Uncle Ben or catching his killer, the only 2 times I can recall that Uncle Ben is mentioned is when Aunt May brings it up, then she calls him out on his childishness and Peter tells her he cares about her just so he can the info he wants out of her.
They hide in a broom closet at one point just so they can crack jokes about how Cliché it is in general to hide in a broom closet
Two planes fly sideways at each other and miss themselves at the last second.
Spiderman helps this kid and it's suppose to be as meaningful as the crane scene from the last spiderman movie, it was better done than the crane but it still wasn't that good.
This will probably be a love it or hate movie for most people, and I hated it.
Well if you're not a fan of Spiderman, that explains why you complain about things that appear in the comic.
I liked it just fine. The entire plot with peters dad should have been cut completely though. The movie should have just cold opened on the truck chase, cut the whole plane bit/train reveal/dad will video plot/aunt may speech and 10-15 minutes could have been shaved off with almost nothing relating to anything else lost in the process. All that side plot does is reiterate what we already know which is that oscorp is evil. Thanks movie.
I agree with electro. He suffered from Darth Maul syndrome. He looked cool and the special effects involving him were pretty spectacular but his character was horrible. His reason for being evil was too sudden/unexplored but the first film did the same thing with the lizard as well so that really seems to be these films weak points.
Still I had a fun time overall. Harry was fun (even if he did get short changed), the gwen/peter stuff was great and the action sequences were pretty well shot. Definitely recommend the 3D for this one. The webslinging/electro stuff looks awesome.
I can't wait to hear your thoughts on Godzilla in 2 weeks. Looks like a great film to me. Hopefully Brian or Dave can see it with you Brad
Electro is a Mormon? That certainly explains quite a bit.
Not saying this in a good or bad way. But, does anyone think that Jillian has the assburgers?
It seems every time their is a woman in one of Brad's videos some asshat leaves a passive-aggressive comment. Bonus points for when I call such a comment out and there's a play-dumb response.
Seriously, is this one guy, or a collection of idiots?
Not sure how being a certain gender or having aspergers is passive-aggressive. But your intolerance is sickening
Alright, troll, just shut the fuck up. We get it, you have no life and need to compensate for that by aggravating others for attention.
Don't worry Irving, I'm with ya. I like the Sam Raimi ones way better, this movie was a confused unfocused piece of nonsense
Actually the sam raimi trilogia is very lame used the same formula, the same climax and die the same way the villains.
Risked nothing and added nothing to the myth of Spiderman, I almost forgot the plot holes of the 3 films were being made more insulting in every movie and Spiderman the most boring of all.
Yeah I felt for Irving because I like the Raimi films too. Hell I'll even give Spider-Man 3 a pass because it got some kind of reaction out of me (mind you a bad reaction but a reaction). ASM didn't do anything and I don't have much expectations for the sequel.
and batman and robin gave many bad reactions, TASM only have bad reactions and indifference to the poor guys who likes themediocre trilogy Sam Raimi and his mediocre repetitive formula.
The reason for the X-Men tag during the credits was actual a legal deal between Sony and Fox. Because the director Marc Webb was on contract with Fox Searchlight to make another movie for them after they put out (500) Days of Summer, but because Sony has him tied up with Spider-Man, they made a deal with Fox to break his contract by advertising X-Men in the credits. Literally only there as a glorified commercial.
Brad & company…fucking thank you!
I really think I hated this movie; it was to me what Man of Steel was to you last year. It was a literal trainwreck unfolding before my eyes, and I'm glad I didn't pay to see this. The only things that worked for me were the chemistry between Garfield & Stone, Spider-Man was perfect (costume & character), and some of the action scenes were pretty cool. I honestly hated every other character in this, from Electro Nigma to the useless fucking cameos by Novak & Chris Cooper. Every single plotline is shoveled in there just for the sake of putting together a universe to compete with Marvel Studios. It's nothing but a sleazy, cheap studio cash-grab, and it's not going to age well. What really killed it for me was the marketing; at least 85% of the fucking movie was spoiled by trailers & advertising. Thanks, Sony!
Where the hell is the heart & soul being put into these movies? It's unfortunate, because some people will overlook the obvious flaws due to fanboyism, and the studio will keep making more as people continue to flock to these half-assed efforts. Waiting for that day Spider-Man comes home to Marvel Studios…I'm afraid it won't be for a very, very long time.
Also, not to be a prick or anything…but what Jillian said about the X-Men mid credits scene sounded like the cheesiest fan fiction. The reason that scene was at the end was because Marc Webb sold his soul to FOX (basically)…he still owes FOX a movie, and in agreement to let Sony have him do this movie, they stuck the Days of Future Past teaser at the end.
"the chemistry between Garfield & Stone, Spider-Man was perfect (costume & character), and some of the action scenes were pretty cool. " so whats the problem?
I saw none of that trailer after that scam From "EL mandarin" in Iron Man 3, I do not see the trailers.
if the biggest problem is that Sony has the worst marketing advertisers, then it means that the movie is very good and actually really feel like a Spiderman comic transformed into film.
>so whats the problem?
Also, just because it "feels like a Spiderman comic transformed into film," doesn't absolve it from all of its flaws. This is supposed to be a movie first and foremost, not a comic book. Having to develop a billion plot lines in one 2 hour movie does not work, simple as that. Like Team Snob said in the review, "Pick ONE villain plotline and go from there." You didn't need to have Electro, Harry, Pete's parents exposition, The Death of Gwen, and all these throwaway characters in a single movie. It may look great on paper, but on film, it's way too crowded, and it does not work.
And no, throwing everything from the movie into the advertising doesn't make it any good either, it means Sony's marketing team sucks.
Sorry but in this kind of movies if you need all that, you have the protagonist justification for being exhausted trying to deal with all this. So a possible overload is justified, as is how Peter must feel. And in the end, you see, we return to the factor that makes this all work: The connection to Peter.
If you wanted to see for the umpteenth time the same boring, generic and predictable formula, looking for another movie. good luck for the next time =)
Yeah, okay man, you lost me there. I repeat, you do NOT need to throw in plotline after plotline for a movie like this stick out from the rest, and even if you wanted to show an emphasis on Peter's "exhaustion," that's just bad writing. You know how they could have handled more than one villain in this movie? Montage Spidey fighting a few throwaway thugs like Rhino, Shocker, Hydroman, and Electro in the opening sequence! You get your cake and you can eat it too. Then have the CENTRAL plot focus around Harry's arc in this movie, giving more emphasis on character development, and I could have seen it work out so much better than the rush job they did here. You don't need to focus on so many different plotpoints in one freakin movie, has Spider-Man 3 not shown this? I don't see how this film is any different from that.
Sacrificing character development over a number of films for "oh, let's throw in all these things into our second movie just so we can get to a Sinister Six team up" is becoming a trite, greedy studio cliche to catch up to the success of the Avengers; just look at what they're doing for Batman vs Superman (inb4 the Man of Steel defenders tear this apart).
So don't give me that bullshit "if you want the same boring, generic formula" excuse; I'd rather have a simple formula work out fantastically (Spider-Man 2) as opposed to cramming everything into one bloated piece of crap. Don't let this bias sense of fanboyism overcrowd any critical judgement; ASM2 was a popcorn flick, at best...nothing more.
worked fantastically in spiderman 2 having a lot of plot holes and huge rivalry between Spiderman and Dr. Octopus is nonexistent and is just a rehash of spiderman one?
That shows that I'm talking to a raimibieler blinded with his fanboyism
Now you're really not making any sense, kid. Try harder
For the record: I hated Tobey Maguire, I hated Kirsten Dunst, I hate almost everything about Spider-Man 3, and I thought Spider-Man 1 was pretty cheesy. Does that still make me a "raimibieler," whatever the hell that means? Oh wait, I like Spider-Man 2 and agree with Irving; it's still the best Spider-Man movie they've ever made. I don't like ASM2 or the direction they seem to be taking this reboot, despite thinking Andrew is a far better Peter Parker than Maguire. Dats gotta mean I'm a die-hard Raimi fan, right?! Derp
And I'm still the one with blinders on? Yeah, whatever. Just keep telling yourself that
spiderman 2 was more cheesy and more stupid than Spiderman 1, Please only a raimibieleber believe that movie is good when development of Octopus and Peter are very lame and everything happens for convenience script, thanks for a absurd and lazy writing.
Spiderman 2 of Raimi was garbage only made the main character more effeminate like the previous movie and they learn the same lesson from the first movie. Character development? the same character in the first 15 minutes of Spiderman 1, will be the same character in spiderman 2 and 3
Despite Tobey being a horrible Peter Parker, SM2's still a better made movie than this piece of shit; it actually feels like there was heart put into it, as opposed to a quick buck. Andrew's a great improvement, but it's not like he's getting any better material to work with here.
And you want development, try Harry Osborn. Franco was miles better than Dehaan, but it's mainly because he had better material…even if both, in the end, had pretty similarly cheap "Goblin" designs, and yes SM3 was still shit either way.
james franco best development? if the butler of harry knew that Norman died by his own fault, he did not tell movie at 2 when he started to become obsessed with spiderman?
if not peter peter had no power, how can it survive a fall from a building without a fracture?
Please Spiderman 2 and 2 have the same level of shit
the "development" of Franco is the most tender and pathetic things i ever seen in a comic book movie
james franco best development? good joek, if the butler of harry knew that Norman died by his own fault,hwy he did not tell in the second movie the truth when he started to become obsessed with spiderman?
if not peter peter had no power, how can it survive a fall from a building without a fracture? Damn that movie have the same formula of the 1 film and was more and more insulting to the audience without brain.
Please Spiderman 2 and 3 have the same level of shit
the "development" of Franco is the most pathetics things i ever seen in a comic book movie.
I don't normally rely on reviews to make the difference between going to see a movie or not, but this one? There's must be something about Spiderman that rubs me the wrong way, as I haven't liked a single one. I clearly didn't hate any of them enough to not give the next one a chance.
Sigh, I guess there's apparently at least some good bits to this one too, so I should give it a go as well.
FOR THE LOVE OF GAWD WILL SOMEONE PLEASE LET JILLIAN DO TRAILERS FOR A MOVIE....THAT POOR POOR GIRL
Batman Returns failed as movie because even though yes the villains all did have arcs but the main character, Batman, had no arc what-so-ever! Batman had more of an arc in Batman Forever, which was the better movie for overall entertainment.
Firstly, "failed as movie", really? Think about what that means for a second and write back an apology.
Second, if you think movies should be judged solely by whether or not the main character has an arc then you are going to end up missing out on a ton of films with good stories. Sometimes the hero staying static is its own reward.
Regardless, Batman Returns is the more entertaining Batman film not because of its narrative structure but because it actually entertains. But, hey, that's just my opinion.
When it comes between "Batman Returns" and "Batman Forever", all I have to say is that "Batman: The Animated Series" was better than both of those combined.
I'll give Irving one thing: he's at his best with his reactions to realizing when others make stupid mistakes in the reviews; this and the "Jules Verne" bit in Journey 2 with Jerrid was amazing.
FYI supposedly 35 min worth of scenes were cut from the film. Electro was supposed to kill his mother for forgetting his birthday. Norman is supposed to be shown frozen. And his conversation with Harry about Peter. Peter and Harry talking about Oscorp spying on him and Goblin fight was originally 20 min longer
All of that should have been left in the movie, and the Parker parents stuff easily could have been cut out, or at least saved for a later movie that wouldn't have been this cluttered.
True. I would have loved the scene with Electro killing his mother. And seeing Norman frozen since he's obviously not dead....it's like killing Harvey Dent before making him Two-Face.
All I have to say is my favorite adaptation of Spider-Man, and arguably the best, is the "Spectacular Spider-Man" animated TV series. There is no other Spider-Man adaptation as up to snuff as that one, despite quite a few changes to the original comic book series. EVERYONE who even remotely likes Spider-Man, pre-One More Day, should watch that show.
Yes, I whole heartily agree. You want a take on Spider-Man that references everything from the classic comics to the Raimi films to the (God awful, in my opinion) Ultimate Spidey comics, look no further than "The Spectacular Spider-Man"!
There definitely should have only been one villain, but I honestly though it should have been the harry osborn/green goblin stuff that should have been cut out, those parts were easily the worst stuff in the movie.
I thought the first Amazing Spider-Man was atrocious garbage that wasn't worth the time it would take to shit on. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 IS a marginal improvement...in the same way a broken leg is an improvement over a punctured lung. I'm glad to hear you guys saw how cluttered and overstuffed this one way.
More of my thoughts on the movie: http://blip.tv/thatsamoanguy/i-saw-the-amazing-spider-man-2-unfortunately-6868658
what a pathetic review =)
Now that Sasquatch Week is over... (Good job, by the way)... How's about another minisode of Random Button? It has been a while now.
Jeez Jillian, were you raised in a convent? Your parents didn't let you watch The Simpsons, read comics, etc. I feel bad for your childhood.
don't, I bet she has a better life than most people with rotten brainwashed TV brains. Like kids before the tech age could never ever be happy rofl
I feel sorry for YOU kid for being so narrow in your thinking and life, poor pathetic excuse for a human being really thinking you can only entertain yourself with tv and comics ROFL
100% agree with you, for me this movie is very underrated
Where did I say one can only entertain themselves with TV and comic books? Oh yeah, that's right. Nowhere!
They are a part of it tho. Or at least they can be. It seems her parents were a little strict however. Which is what I was getting at by my "raised in a convent" comment. I, like Brad, could watch whatever I wanted. But I also read a fair bit.
Love the "kid" comment btw. I'm 32, not that it's really any of your business.
I also said I felt bad for her childhood. Not sorry for. Big difference. Did I really need to use emoticons to show I wasn't completely serious? Maybe you need them to get that, not all of us are as intellectually handicapped.
I've banned my kids from comics, TV, movies and the internet.
The only thing I allow them to watch is The Cinema Snob (and 80s Dan)
80's Dan is the most wholesome show that is fun for the whole family.
That cool. Raise your kids however you like. Same with Jillian's parents. Thanks for not being a dick about it like Harry.
Personally I loved this movie. I think it's the best Spider-Man movie by far. I love Dane Dehaan as Harry, I love Andrew Garfield's version of Spider-Man, and I love how Electro was basically Kessler from Infamous mixed with Dr. Manhattan.
This movie was awesome, Dane Dehaan was better than Defoe and James Franco.
the general reaction to ASM2 is probably one of the more interesting split reactions I've seen in a while. It almost seems like no 2 people share the same general feelings on it. I've seen people who hated electro and loved harry, some had it the other way around. Some people who think this is the best, some who think this is the worst some who thought this was better than ASM1 and some worse. It's almost kind of fascinating.
For my part I liked this FAR better than ASM1, loved Electro (I actually kind of really enjoyed his character and felt he had a lot more depth than they intended him to have. Though I fully admit I'm probably projecting onto Electro given my history of depression a few years back) and felt the Osborn stuff could have been done better or been streamlined.
Definitely gonna be interested in seeing the general reaction to this once enough people have seen it and the spoiler floodgates open
The general reaction I've seen/heard is basically Brad and co's review: it's messy but there's good character work with Parker/Stacey. And yeah... that's my consensus too.
As someone else noted, it's marginally better than the first ASM and the stuff that worked for me really worked, I liked it a lot but it is too messy and honestly a drag through a great portion of it. I say there's about 45 minutes of scenes/moments that worked for me while the rest of it I can do without.
Huh, I didnt make the connection between the electro fight with the towers and itsy bitsy spider, I just thought it was neat.
the music is another thing I guess I split from people on. I kind of really peersonally loved Electro's theme n Time Square, I thought it was worked and was really well timed and placed. But I can see how some people wouldn't like it.
Though overall I thought Zimmer's score was better than Horner's phoned in score from ASm1
man jillian sure knows how to start a debate
I absolutely LOVED this movie and the reboot series in general. Don't get me wrong, the Raimi movies weren't bad, but these are imho far better as a long time Spidey-comic-fan. I'm so looking forward to the two spin-off movies and part 3.
These films really feels like watching a comic book done moviedo not try the same conventional formula like other movies.
Andrew Garfiled is the real Spiderman.
I'm convinced the Rhino part at the end and it continuing after thre graveyard was entirely so it doesnt bum out the kids who you know are going to have their parents take them to this.
So they'll be sad then walk out going 'ah man did you see that robot'
Once again I've got to strongly recommend that Brad checks out "Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974" if he wants to see more of Andrew Garfield as an actor. It's the first part of a trilogy and a very dark, gritty crime drama set in Yorkshire in the 70's which follows a young reporter (Garfield) as he investigates the rape, torture and murder of a girl found with swan wings stitched to her back.
I can't take Spiderman seriously when he is skinnier and more effeminate than his love interest. Toby Maguire, as flamboyant as he was, at least didn't make his character look like a total sissy and didn't have an eating disorder.
Actually tobey Mcguire was a faggot and sissy spiderman, even aunt may have more balls than Mcguire
I agree but Tobey Maguire looks less of a stereotypical thespian you'd see in high school than Garfield . Basically, Maguire set the pansy bar pretty low and Garfield did not surpass that bar. Garfield does not embody anything about the male gender. There is nothing intimidating about him.
Well. the point must be that Peter Parker is not intimidating (but not look like a retarded like Mcguire), is why no one believes int he comics that Peter Parker is Spiderman, so it does make a contrast between the two diferent personalities.
"Garfield does not embody anything about the male gender"
I'm sorry but I really don't understand this remark. Last time I checked the only thing you need to embody everything about the male gender is a dick. If Andrew Garfield has a dick then what's your problem?
Maybe they should have inserted scenes of Peter Parker eating steaks, swigging beer, punching women, watching sports, hunting, chopping wood, participating in a pissing contest, saying "faggot", joining the military, hanging out with douches in locker room bragging about some bitch he fucked, driving a truck etc
"Being a man" doesn't mean "being a male", David.
I was simply confused as to how someone who is male can "not embody anything about the male gender", I didn't say anything about "being a man" though maybe you could enlighten me as to your definition of that phrase.
The other movie next week is a Jake movie; Return to Oz: Dorothy's Return. Let the angry flow.
Its humorously ironic that you made the Jurassic Park joke and then referenced Edge of Darkness right after that, Brad, because Bob Peck, who played Muldoon in Jurassic Park also played the lead role in the television series that the Mel Gibson Edge of Darkness movie is based off of.
One thing that was weird to me is that spiderman could slow down time to shot web from all directions to stop MULTIPLE people from getting shocked to death in time's square, but slowed down time in the same to save Stacy and still couldn't save her.
Was time slowing down, or was spiderman using his spider sense to save others? If it's the second one it shouldn't work to save other people, just himself.
I'm pretty sure Spider-Sense triggered for the electricity because "Hey, lethal voltage over here! Don't touch!"
The slow-mo is probably just meant to be him quickly judging the situations.
What Adam said about the slow-mo representing Spidey's reaction time (this happens when Rhino crashes into the bus at the beginning of the film as well), but also he didn't "shot web from from all directions", he manipulated the web-stream the same way you would put your thumb over the mouth of a hose to manipulate it into a wave. In this case, doing so allowed Peter to spray his web into a fan in either direction to stop the car and then uses two separate, short webs to stop the dozy civilians from getting toasted.
But when does Arachne turn up singing about shoes and fucking Spiderman to become a real woman?
To help answer Iving's question/problem about why they needed Parker to move on so quickly at the end.
In the first amazing spiderman movie they released the game to take place right after the first. They did the same or similar with this movie and they didn't want to put in more work then they had to with the 2nd game. So they made him get over such a painful hurtle in his life as quickly as possible so they wouldn't need to write it into the game and save themselves a quick buck.
actually nevermind, this time the game was a prequel to the movie from what I've seen instead of a sequel, which must be why Uncle Ben isn't mentioned so much in the movie
I liked the song playing during the Times Square actually. The thing that pissed me off the most was that Gwen Stacey won the Oxford Scholarship, and the movie doesn't attribute any weight to that at all. Other than the death scene at the end of the movie, I thought that Gwen Stacey's scenes could have been cut. If they focused less on her, or removed her completely, and focused more on Electro I would have liked it more.
Plus, I would have preferred more goofiness from Spiderman, that being his thing.
attributed to the movie itself, and that Peter is convinced to have a life with her in england, and no remorse, a promise of true love on the bridge and have a life plan with gwen, when he dies, arbitraril and unfair, when Peter had finally found happiness she dies.
Personally I think the gripes about the internet connection from the plane are a bit silly and ridiculous considering all the other advanced technology that shows up in that world we don't have in our's. Its easy to assume that 10 years ago they'd of been able to send that signal, ESPECIALLY from an Oscorp plane.
Actually... YES, spiderman is in continuity with the X-Men. All main Marvel franchises (And several non-main) are in continuity with eachother.
The movies, not the comics. Spider-Man = Sony, X-men = Fox, Avengers = Marvel, etc. Totally different continuities. If they were actually interconnected cinematic universes, you'd think someone would notice the world-conquering Sentinels.
I personally liked this movie a lot, really flashy, great 3d effects good music, plot and characters. My main problem is that the whole Green Goblin bit felt rather tacked on and unnecessary. That should have just been relegated to the next movie, even if they wanted to save a bit of its runtime by putting him here, and leave it more time for te Sinister Six. I understand they wanted to have Gwen Stacy die in a manner similar to how it happened in the comics, but couldn't they just have her fried by Electro as a result of Peter's mistake? The effect on the plot would be the same and there'd be mor time to for example reimplement some of the deleted footage.
My theater has a morning showing for $5 so I took advantage of that and went to see this. Well actually 7.50 because 3D is extra but still it was relatively cheap. For what I paid for the movie was alright. Nothing I'll probably ever see again but nothing that left me too pissed off.
I'm assuming someone else already pointed this out, but I have to remark on the irony of criticizing this movie because they consolidated Harry's story arc into a single flick, when the Raimi trilogy was completely devoid of the entire character of Gwen Stacey.
That is not irony.
I just saw it & I'm seriously debating which is worse Spider-man 3 or this. On one hand SM3 has Sandman as the main villain til the end, has Harry in that STUPID outfit riding a "sky stick" & shoehorning in Venom, in my opinion the best Spidey villain after Green Goblin & Doc Ock, giving him barely 10 minutes at the end with terrible casting to boot. . . or this. Having Electo (race matters not) be Edward Nygma (AND Aldrich Killian from Iron Man 3 just last year!!!) faboy freak, Rhino for 20 seconds & butt fuck one of the most heartbreaking, epic comic book moments ever!!!!
All that said, Dane DeHaan was awesome for the ten minutes he was "Goblin" & I demand he get the opportunity to play the Joker!
Bottom line: not counting Spider-Man 3, Raimi's & these 2 have something for every Spidey fan.
If you want a more old school villains you watch Raimi's 1 & 2, if you want a more smart ass Spider-Man you watch Amazing (which sucks because in the first movie video game tie-in he's quipping like crazy, why not in the movies?). You can laugh at Willem Dafoe's GG but that's the closest to the comic we'll ever get!
But the biggest thing against this new series? HE NEVER FOUND UNCLE BEN'S KILLER FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!