Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: Amazing but not Perfect

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Amazing but not Perfect Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Amazing but not Perfect - 9/7/2012 1:26:56 PM   
bruised_blood

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/8/2006
[image]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6szbyhEmM1qfdh0go1_1280.gif[/image]

(in reply to CambiMan)
Post #: 121
RE: Amazing but not Perfect - 9/7/2012 1:27:16 PM   
bruised_blood

 

Posts: 38
Joined: 2/8/2006
[image]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6szbyhEmM1qfdh0go1_1280.gif[/image]

(in reply to CambiMan)
Post #: 122
RE: DIfferent....but good different - 9/7/2012 2:58:58 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1050
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

SPOILERS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2
Maybe Gwen's so full of grief after her father's death that she realises she really loves/needs Peter, so she's able to move past her fear.

It wasn't really about Gwen's fear, it was about her father's fear that being with Parker would bring her harm. We are lead to believe that Parker accepts this even though he finds it hearbreaking, only for him to change his mind 10 minutes later in a cocky 'Screw your dad' kind of way. It was a bit unedifying to say the least.


quote:


Also, since when have promises like the one Peter makes ever been stuck to rigidly when it comes to matters of the heart? Fiction is littered with kind of thing.

Peter Parker has never struck me as an outright moral/ethical guardian in the way that Batman or Superman are; he's a teenage boy in love, and teenage boy's (and adult's) in love do stupid things; it doesn't seem to me like it's a flaw in the characterisation.


There's ways of going about it though. At least in Raimi's version they stick with his decision to distance himself from the woman he loves, until she discovers his secret (at the end of the second film) and makes his decision a bit redundant. In this film there wasn't really any point introducing it into the story, since it's abandoned almost immediately. It ultimately served no purpose whatsoever.


Well, it worked for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazdance

Nothing much about this film had me dying to see it apart from maybe the casting of Andrew Garfield. The memory of the very disappointing Spiderman 3 still lingers and nothing about the marketing of the film made it feel like much of a big deal.
Thankfully having lower expectations of a film can work out well as I really enjoyed The Amazing Spiderman. Itís a really good blockbuster and I think better than the previous trilogy.
If youíre going to reboot the story and recast your main character then you need to ensure the audience isnít sat there wishing for the previous incarnation. If they are then youíve failed.
The film succeeds by having much better characterisation that resonates emotionally. We get a sense of the relationship between Aunt May and Uncle Ben and the years theyíve been together so that when Uncle Ben dies, it feels like more of a tragedy.
Peter Parker is still portrayed as a bit of a geeky outsider however heís more believable because heís shown to have a bit of a vindictive streak, especially when he obtains his powers. Heís still the good guy but we actually get to see him enjoying what he can do, being cocky with it and hinting at a darker side to the character. I always hated Maguire's snivelling wimp portrayal and with hindsight it was always better when he wasn't on screen. In Garfield, there's an actor worth watching and his scenes are just as fun as the ones where he's in the suit.
His relationship with Gwen Stacey is sweetly played and itís refreshing to have the heroine of the piece be more than just a shrieking damsel in need of rescuing.

Special effects have improved in ten years and everything looks much more photo real. I really don't understand criticisms that modern multi million dollar blockbusters have poor CGI - they don't - since it's so advanced now that its pretty much impossible. It's hardly TV budget standard so some perspective please. Many of the scenes of Spiderman swinging feel exhilarating and the film uses 3D to its advantage really, really well. It is the best film I have seen to be shot in 3D that looks any good since Avatar. It's not afraid to use the effect and actually have things leap out of the screen - perfect for the material.

In 2002 Spiderman had me feeling like I really wanted to see a sequel. The Amazing Spiderman left me feeling the same way but that the films might improve rather than decline.
The only ridiculous thing is Peter Parker using Bing as his default search engine - totally unbelievable. The rest is Amazing. Yes, it is.


I think your views sum up my feelings on the film. I never in a million years thought I would write this about the new film, but I think it is vastly superior to Raimi's incarnation. I don't actively hate those movies or anything, but I just think that this seems like a much more authentic invocation of Spiderman.

I had thought the entire movie a completely pointless reboot, but Marc Webb really has done an excellent job bringing the film to life, and I think it owes a great debt to Chris Nolan's Batman movies. Everything just felt far more authentic, and Garfield is a better actor than Toby Maguire in this role. The script is snappy and the action is superb, benefiting enormously from an advancement in CGI. The stunt work is also very good as well.

The film could perhaps use a bit of editing in places as the momentum does sag at points, but the time spent on building up Parker's journey to Spiderman is pretty well used. Yes, there are threads of the story that seem to just get forgotten and The Lizard does nothing to top the best villian of the Spiderman movies yet, Molina's Doc Oc, but those are the only real criticisms that I have. I'd gone in not expecting much but I was very pleasantly surprised indeed.

4/5.

P.S. I never saw the films in 3D so I can't comment on how that looks, but the POV sequences probably worked best there. It's a a nice idea to try and give the audience a Spidey-eye-view, but in 2D it doesn't really work, so I would've liked to have seen those scenes dropped as they are a bit gimmicky.


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to superdan)
Post #: 123
10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 2:10:59 AM   
BatSpider


Posts: 170
Joined: 6/7/2010
1. Shit cynicism. A reboot better be brilliant coming just 10 years after the original, otherwise it just looks the blatantly hurried cash grab that it is. It's actually a lot worse than not even good.
2. Shit dialogue. One of the lines thudded something like "he's a man of many masks, I understand". Holy freakin' fuck...
3. Shit writing. At one point Spiderman goes all urban gangsta... is this the Spidey wit we've been waiting for? What the fuck?
4. Shit casting. Peter and Gwen are supposed to 17. Garfield is 28 or 29. Stone must be in her mid-20s. The teenage actors' union should be pretty pissed off. Isn't Garfield actually older than Toby Maguire!?
5. Shit acting. Getting some teenage unknowns would have resulted in more natural and less self-conscious "acting". Not sure what was more annoying - Garfield's rubber faced twitches, or Emma Stone's unattractive "seen-it-all porn actress on crack" schtick.
6. Shit repetition. This one took longer to get Parker's ass bitten by a spider than the original. Was it to fill time and save on Spidey scenes and budget? This Uncle Ben scene had way less impact, and what was the point of the shooter again?
And they copied the thing about normal folk helping Spiderman, but again this seemed awkward and forced.
Seemed like the writers wanted to create something original but fell between copying the good stuff of the original (badly) and, um, going nowhere.
7. Shit music. I can remember the original's theme, but not this one. Was there a fucking Coldplay dirge in there somewhere?
8. Shit Peter Parker / Spiderman. Garfield's Peter Parker is a cross between R-Patz and Justin fucking Bieber. He obviously wasn't going to end up working at McDonalds. His only dilemma in life would seem to be which hair gel to use. To try and toughen him up the scriptwriters just turn him into an even bigger asshole and semi-bully as Spiderman - gangsta boy for the brainless urban masses.
9. Merchandise shit?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 124
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 1:07:39 PM   
BatSpider


Posts: 170
Joined: 6/7/2010
Empire cut me off in my prime.
9. The creepy scene where the boy apparently only gets enough courage to climb out the car by putting on a Spiderman mask. Yeah, right.
10. I can't remember what 10. was.

_____________________________

"Baby, you make me wish I had THREE hands!"

(in reply to BatSpider)
Post #: 125
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 1:17:03 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider
4. Shit casting. Peter and Gwen are supposed to 17. Garfield is 28 or 29. Stone must be in her mid-20s. The teenage actors' union should be pretty pissed off. Isn't Garfield actually older than Toby Maguire!?


No, Maguire is 37, so would have been 27 when he made the first film. They can't cast actual 17 year olds because 'kids' under 18 can only work so many hours and since a lot of the film is at night and Garfield is in the majority of the scenes, it's not practical. That is why US TV shows constantly hire 20 somethings as teenagers. Plus, they needed someone older for the physical scenes too, again, there are rules for that sort of thing (Garfield would have to train like a mofo).

Garfield was great as Parker, if anything, I'd say he was too tall (he towered over almost everybody) but the cast were the best thing about the film.


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to BatSpider)
Post #: 126
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 1:22:27 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

Emma Stone's unattractive "seen-it-all porn actress on crack" schtick.



Are you deliberately going out of your way to be the most unpleasant member of this board?


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to BatSpider)
Post #: 127
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 1:23:50 PM   
adambatman82

 

Posts: 11156
Joined: 15/12/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider

1. Shit cynicism. A reboot better be brilliant coming just 10 years after the original, otherwise it just looks the blatantly hurried cash grab that it is. It's actually a lot worse than not even good.
2. Shit dialogue. One of the lines thudded something like "he's a man of many masks, I understand". Holy freakin' fuck...
3. Shit writing. At one point Spiderman goes all urban gangsta... is this the Spidey wit we've been waiting for? What the fuck?
4. Shit casting. Peter and Gwen are supposed to 17. Garfield is 28 or 29. Stone must be in her mid-20s. The teenage actors' union should be pretty pissed off. Isn't Garfield actually older than Toby Maguire!?
5. Shit acting. Getting some teenage unknowns would have resulted in more natural and less self-conscious "acting". Not sure what was more annoying - Garfield's rubber faced twitches, or Emma Stone's unattractive "seen-it-all porn actress on crack" schtick.
6. Shit repetition. This one took longer to get Parker's ass bitten by a spider than the original. Was it to fill time and save on Spidey scenes and budget? This Uncle Ben scene had way less impact, and what was the point of the shooter again?
And they copied the thing about normal folk helping Spiderman, but again this seemed awkward and forced.
Seemed like the writers wanted to create something original but fell between copying the good stuff of the original (badly) and, um, going nowhere.
7. Shit music. I can remember the original's theme, but not this one. Was there a fucking Coldplay dirge in there somewhere?
8. Shit Peter Parker / Spiderman. Garfield's Peter Parker is a cross between R-Patz and Justin fucking Bieber. He obviously wasn't going to end up working at McDonalds. His only dilemma in life would seem to be which hair gel to use. To try and toughen him up the scriptwriters just turn him into an even bigger asshole and semi-bully as Spiderman - gangsta boy for the brainless urban masses.
9. Merchandise shit?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BatSpider
Empire cut me off in my prime.
9. The creepy scene where the boy apparently only gets enough courage to climb out the car by putting on a Spiderman mask. Yeah, right.
10. I can't remember what 10. was.


My favourite bit was when you referred to "brainless" folk, only to then quite literally forget how to count to ten.

< Message edited by adambatman82 -- 10/7/2012 1:24:32 PM >

(in reply to BatSpider)
Post #: 128
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 1:32:24 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire


_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to adambatman82)
Post #: 129
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 1:51:18 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park
So edgy, so cool.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 130
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 2:32:51 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3989
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh
So, my review of the Amazing Spider-Man, and why I consider it to be not so amazing.

http://www.literallygeeking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/review-amazing-spider-man.html

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 131
- 10/7/2012 2:56:44 PM   
TheGodfather


Posts: 5358
Joined: 21/10/2005
From: Sin City


The Amazing Spider-Man
When the reboot of the Spider-Man franchise was announced I`m sure I wasn`t the only one on the planet who was sceptical about this. But as more and more images were revealed that became lesser, the first trailers made me highly enthousiastical. Could this really become something good? The answer is a wholehearted "YES".

With only his second feature film Marc Webb (what`s in a name?) he shows that next to brilliant little romantic comedies like (500) Days Of Summer he can also do a big summer blockbuster.

Of course we can`t get around comparing this version to the Sam Raimi`s version. Compared to that version, Peter Parker`s backgroundstory (about his parents,among other things) is much better and longer here. You get more info about his past and that makes it better to understand for the uninitiated in the Spider-Man universe (yours truly included). Everything is just a bit darker, part of the humor that was in Raimi`s version is absent here as well.
The built-up of the story is good, towards the ending the film speeds up and we witness a booming finale. Wich brings us right to the biggest downside of the film. The Green Lizard wasn`t réally a convincing villain and the end fight between Spider-Man and The Green Lizard was over too soon.
Andrew Garfield is very convicing as Tobey Maguire`s successor as Spider-Man and Emma Stone is enjoyable every time, for her looks of course but as well for her good acting performance.

Another thing that I didn`t like (again) was the 3D (again) that didn`t really add anything for me, except in the "Spidey swing scenes" (wich were really cool). It`s about bloody damn time that in Tinsletown they start to realise that, unless it`s very well done, this doesn`t add anything at all but only takes pleasure away from the film going experience.

But other than that I absolutely thought this wasn`t the failure that on fo

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 132
RE: 10 reasons why unAmazing Spiderman is SHIT - 10/7/2012 3:04:37 PM   
st3veebee


Posts: 2353
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

So, my review of the Amazing Spider-Man, and why I consider it to be not so amazing.

http://www.literallygeeking.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/review-amazing-spider-man.html


Good review: spot on about the lack of connection between Spidey and the Big Apple.

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 133
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 10/7/2012 7:56:02 PM   
Larry of Arabia

 

Posts: 7576
Joined: 28/2/2007
From: Turtle Island
It was pretty good overall but it didn't wow me like The Avengers did so successfully already. It felt less ambitious and the pacing was slow so it didn't gather momentum plot-wise like the best of the superhero films do (Spider-Man 2, for instance). It also seemed content to lean a bit too heavily on character moments, and I'm saying this as someone not averse to them. I can't say there were any true "Fuck yeah" moments either. It does have a lot of good smaller bits -

- The Lizard effects were supoib and overall the CG was great.
- Garfield was great even if I prefer Maguire's more wholesome Peter to his sarky one. The former was much better at the deep emotional aspects of Parker than ol' Quiver-Chin Maguire though. I got a lump in the throat more than once!
- Emma Stone was also great but I think that's kinda because she is Emma Stone.
- Some good humour - Spidey's weakness being small knives giving me a particular chuckle. Sadly it kinda dried up after that as far as Spidey quips were concerned.

Generally though, all these great small moments don't add up to more than the sum of their parts, but it's a decent set up for future installments. Some niggles were the alarming amount of people he revealed his identity to/found it out pretty easily (Aunt May, Gwen, George Stacey, random kid, Conners - 'property of Peter Parker' on your camera, seriously?) and the American flag's obligatory appearance in the third act which seems to be a thing in Spidey films for some reason. Maybe it's a New York thing.

A solid 3/5 for me.

Also, I should point out that Peter doesn't Google anything, he uses... erm... Bing.

_____________________________

"Everything was beautiful and nothing hurt."


(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 134
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 10/7/2012 8:23:15 PM   
Gazdance


Posts: 1239
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Southampton
Also, there's nothing wrong with rebooting a franchise after ten years. Doctor Who reboots with a new incarnation of the same character every few years. Arguably so does James Bond. Why not Spiderman?

(in reply to Larry of Arabia)
Post #: 135
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 10/7/2012 8:46:28 PM   
MonsterCat


Posts: 7934
Joined: 24/3/2011
From: St. Albans, Hertfordshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazdance

Also, there's nothing wrong with rebooting a franchise after ten years. Doctor Who reboots with a new incarnation of the same character every few years. Arguably so does James Bond. Why not Spiderman?


Doctor Who changes his appearance every so often. The show doesn't actually start from scratch every-time a new actor comes in.

Raimi's first film may have been released ten years ago, but it is still relatively fresh in the minds of those who saw it. Re-starting the franchise so soon after Raimi's film may have been unnecessary, but it doesn't seem to have damaged this thing's chances at the box-office.



_____________________________

"I am a writer, a doctor, a nuclear physicist and a theoretical philosopher. But above all, I am a man, a hopelessly inquisitive man, just like you."

Films watched in 2013

(in reply to Gazdance)
Post #: 136
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 10/7/2012 11:57:13 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15398
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gazdance

Also, there's nothing wrong with rebooting a franchise after ten years. Doctor Who reboots with a new incarnation of the same character every few years. Arguably so does James Bond. Why not Spiderman?


I get what you mean and I do agree with you to an extent but those probably aren't the best examples you could have given.Batan Begins after Batman and Robin may have been better. The only real problem I have is that, as a fan of Spider-Man, I already know the origin story through the cartoons and the comics, I don't need to see it again. I understand why they did it if it was indeed because of the 'some kids weren't around then' but in this day and age were anyone can see Spider-Man pretty much any time they want, it's pointless.

Also, going back to Batman, the 1989 film by Burton wasn't a Batman origin story, it had a flashback to his parents getting killed, that probably would have been better here.


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Gazdance)
Post #: 137
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 9:43:56 AM   
Gazdance


Posts: 1239
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Southampton
Granted, Doctor Who assumes a certain amount of knowledge from the viewer about the character of the Doctor. However, consider it from the point of view of the companion. The show arguably uses that character as the 'way in' for the audience and as such there is a reboot more often than not. People tend not to acknowledge it as much though as the Doctor is the main character. Each time there is a new companion though, we have the origin story that pretty much always involved the same things; revelation, sense of awe, wonder & disbelief before adventure.

My point is though, there is no reason that Spiderman shouldn't have been rebooted and suggestions that it is redundant seem trite. There are numerous incarnations of the character in the comics and the last film was not universally adored. Perhaps it would have been refreshing to launch the new franchise with Spiderman established and go from there but it seems obvious now that the writers are crafting a backstory to play out over the confirmed trilogy so the origin is inevitable.

I doubt Warners will wait ten years to reboot Batman and we'll have a new interpretation of that character too.

(in reply to MonsterCat)
Post #: 138
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 12:03:55 PM   
jmebaby25

 

Posts: 272
Joined: 28/6/2006
From: Manchester
I saw it last night and really enjoyed it. The key to its success is the exceptional cast. Garfield, Stone & Sheen are superb - even Ifans impressed me.

In fact, within minutes of Garfield and Stone appearing on screen it was apparent just how miscast Maguire and Dunst were. I saw it in 2D and everything looked superb. There was only a few small missteps - such as Irrfan Khan rather suddenly vanishing from proceedings (Did he die? I thought Spider-man saved him) and, whilst I'm sure New Yorkers loved it, the crane sentimental gush wasn't my thing - Raimi's films were filled with similar sickly NYC stuff.

Oh - mention to Dennis Leary who was a great addition to the cast.

Perhaps the best thing about The Amazing Spider-man is that I can look forward to a sequel, rather than looking back with distaste to Spider-man 3.

_____________________________

I make the world wide web a little prettier.
www.hoylandwebdesign.com

(in reply to Gazdance)
Post #: 139
The Forgettable Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 12:37:10 PM   
laj105

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 14/2/2006
I wrote my full thoughts below, but in short Andy Garfield and Emma Stone were great, but the new grittier tone was spectacularly misjudged. The action was also uninspired, despite having the best Spidey effects since film no. 2.



< Message edited by elab49 -- 24/7/2012 10:23:04 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 140
RE: The Forgettable Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 12:49:44 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1050
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: laj105
...but the new grittier tone was spectacularly misjudged.




Really disagree with that, but to each his own.


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to laj105)
Post #: 141
RE: The Forgettable Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 1:21:25 PM   
Harry Tuttle


Posts: 7993
Joined: 12/11/2005
From: Sometime in the future.
I'm off to watch this on Sunday and I can't wait to be honest. I always thought the Raimi films were decent but massively over rated, I think the main problem for me was that I thought Maguire was an awful Peter Parker.

As to the complaints about rebooting the franchise, well they had no choice really considering Raimi killed off 2 versions of the Green Goblin, Eddie Brock & Venom and Doc Ock. Granted, they had Lizard, Kraven, Electro and Mysterio left to play with (as well as a load of b listers) but you have to have Norman Osborne and Oscorp available at the least in a Spidey franchise. If this spawns a sequel then hopefully we'll get a decent Green Goblin.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Blood Island. So called because it's the exact shape of some blood

(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 142
RE: The Forgettable Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 1:37:44 PM   
Qwerty Norris


Posts: 3989
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle


As to the complaints about rebooting the franchise, well they had no choice really considering Raimi killed off 2 versions of the Green Goblin, Eddie Brock & Venom and Doc Ock. Granted, they had Lizard, Kraven, Electro†and Mysterio left to play with (as well as a load of b listers) but you have to have Norman Osborne and Oscorp available at the least in a Spidey franchise. If this spawns a sequel then hopefully we'll get a decent Green Goblin.


But they did have a choice NOT to regurgitate an origins story - but they did so anyway.

I genuinely believe the cast deserve all the credit for its success, as they've hoodwinked people into believing they're watching a better spider-man film than they've actually got.






_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. A Hijacking
4. Behind the Candelabra
5. In The Fog
6. Good Vibrations
7. McCullin
8. Beyond the Hills
9. The Place Beyond the Pines
10. Wreck-it Ralph

(in reply to Harry Tuttle)
Post #: 143
RE: The Forgettable Spider-Man - 11/7/2012 1:46:45 PM   
Harry Tuttle


Posts: 7993
Joined: 12/11/2005
From: Sometime in the future.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harry Tuttle


As to the complaints about rebooting the franchise, well they had no choice really considering Raimi killed off 2 versions of the Green Goblin, Eddie Brock & Venom and Doc Ock. Granted, they had Lizard, Kraven, Electro and Mysterio left to play with (as well as a load of b listers) but you have to have Norman Osborne and Oscorp available at the least in a Spidey franchise. If this spawns a sequel then hopefully we'll get a decent Green Goblin.


But they did have a choice NOT to regurgitate an origins story - but they did so anyway.

I genuinely believe the cast deserve all the credit for its success, as they've hoodwinked people into believing they're watching a better spider-man film than they've actually got.




Can't really have a reboot without an origin. That said though I guess they could have taken the Incredible Hulk route and got the origin in during the opening credits.

Looking forward to it regardless, I'm a fan of Stone and fan of Garfield.

_____________________________

Acting...Naturaaal

Your knowledge of scientific biological transmogrification is only outmatched by your zest for kung-fu treachery!

Blood Island. So called because it's the exact shape of some blood

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 144
AMAZING SPIDERMAN - YES IT IS !!! - 12/7/2012 1:19:56 AM   
ryanchallenger

 

Posts: 30
Joined: 2/3/2010
What a film, loved every second of it. All performances were truly amazing and I would Deffo Recommend it. Fantastic !!!

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 145
More reasons this move fails - 12/7/2012 2:54:49 AM   
BatSpider


Posts: 170
Joined: 6/7/2010
1. The Lizard. His head is a perma-grinning gimp instead of the wild elongated snout, toothy, long tongued version in the comics. I guess this was to avoid getting too scary for the kiddies watching, they could at least have kept him deep green and with the signature white lab coat.
2. Misleading advertising. There were scenes/dialogue in the trailer not in the movie. Not that it would have improved it at all.
3. Messy loose ends. As others pointed out, what happened to Irfan Khan's character, and what was the point of the shooter again?
4. Sally Field. A totally wet one-note performance. Aunt May seemed to have more balls in the original, until she got irritating in the sequels.
5. The creation of the suit and web-shooters seemed to take half a scene. What an efficient genius.
6. The parents. Who gives a shit what their involvement was, they did nothing and added nothing to the movie.
7. The promise at the end - what the hell was the point anyway.
8. Peter Parker / Spiderman' character arc in this movie: standard dull emo with skateboard and brylcream powers to dull a$$hole emo with unearned super powers.
9. Emma Stone aping that Britney Spears school video, but without the irony.
The committee that made this movie sure seemed to have the Twilight mob square in their sights.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 146
RE: The Amazing Spider-Man - 12/7/2012 10:46:13 AM   
bennyboy1971

 

Posts: 43
Joined: 4/7/2008
Whyderman?

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 147
RE: The Forgettable Spider-Man - 12/7/2012 12:57:39 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1050
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

I genuinely believe the cast deserve all the credit for its success, as they've hoodwinked people into believing they're watching a better spider-man film than they've actually got.



Or, given that film interpretation is very subjective, maybe some people actually think it is a better film?

_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Qwerty Norris)
Post #: 148
RE: DIfferent....but good different - 12/7/2012 1:12:50 PM   
Rgirvan44


Posts: 19049
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: Filmfan 2


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Getting more and more annoyed with this flick -

SPOILERS


At the end Spidey makes a promise to a dying father to leave his daughter alone, a daughter who previously expressed a fear that one day he would never come home.

Peter then says they can't be together due to this promise.

And then next scene breaks the promise with a shit eating grin, all the while Gwen grins back.

So now Peter doesn't even have a sense of honour about him? Why would she continue to see a guy who is in far more danger of being killed than her father...who was killed?

It is a pretty terrible character moment, and makes Peter seem vapid.


Really? Idon't agree with that at all.

Maybe Gwen's so full of grief after her father's death that she realises she really loves/needs Peter, so she's able to move past her fear. Also, since when have promises like the one Peter makes ever been stuck to rigidly when it comes to matters of the heart? Fiction is littered with kind of thing.

Peter Parker has never struck me as an outright moral/ethical guardian in the way that Batman or Superman are; he's a teenage boy in love, and teenage boy's (and adult's) in love do stupid things; it doesn't seem to me like it's a flaw in the characterisation.

Tha said, I'm no comicbook afficianado, so by all means challenge my point on Peter and morality if it warrants it.


Peter made a promise to a dying man to leave his daughter alone. He has seen loved ones killed. His school was attacked, Gwen was nearly killed. He agrees to a promise to leave her alone. He then states this to her - that he loves her, but cannot be with her, and there is an understanding, albeit a sad one.

Next scene - oh wait, its fine, they are smirking with each other. Guess neither of them are bothered about the promise.

This isn't about a superhero having ethics, it is about very human moral obligations - Peter comes off a douche and someone who puts his own needs above those of others at the end. I don't read the comics, but this is a horrible little ending. You know, it is expected one day Peter would break the promise, because that is the sort of thing these stories do - but at least give him a journey to that point.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.


(in reply to Filmfan 2)
Post #: 149
RE: DIfferent....but good different - 12/7/2012 1:18:55 PM   
Filmfan 2


Posts: 1050
Joined: 30/9/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

This isn't about a superhero having ethics, it is about very human moral obligations - Peter comes off a douche and someone who puts his own needs above those of others at the end. I don't read the comics, but this is a horrible little ending. You know, it is expected one day Peter would break the promise, because that is the sort of thing these stories do - but at least give him a journey to that point.


Fair enough, but we're assuming here that because of that scene that they're instantly back together, and that may not be the case. I take your point, but I'll wait and see what happens with the next movie.

< Message edited by Filmfan 2 -- 12/7/2012 1:19:21 PM >


_____________________________

I am not drinkin' any fuckin' Merlot!

"All I wanted me was a piece of cornbread, you motherfuckers!"

Defender of all things Batman Begins


(in reply to Rgirvan44)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Amazing but not Perfect Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Movie News††|††Empire Blog††|††Movie Reviews††|††Future Films††|††Features††|††Video Interviews††|††Image Gallery††|††Competitions††|††Forum††|††Magazine††|††Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125