|
Post by delbertgrady on Jul 7, 2012 19:52:53 GMT -5
Saw the reboot of this franchise. Guess the best way to sum up my feelings on it would be to say it was kind of underwelming. There was nothing terrible about it, everything is just kind of middle of the road (the performances, special effects, the screen play, the romance). Thought whenever Denis Leary was on screen he brought some energy to the movie, but he didn't have a lot of screen time. The movie just isn't a lot of fun, I realize they were going for a darker take on Spiderman but by doing this didn't add any pathos, moral complexity, deep messages etc. to the film in my opinion. My rankings of the Spiderman movies: Spiderman------------------3 1/2 out of 4 stars Spiderman 2----------------3 out of 4 stars The Amazing Spiderman----2 1/2 out of 4 stars Spiderman 3----------------2 out of 4 stars
|
|
|
Post by xtrialbyfirex on Jul 8, 2012 12:05:53 GMT -5
The main thing I hated was the rehashing of the origins story... It's been 60 years, unless you've been living under a rock you know how it happens.
I seriously hate origins stories to begin with. These characters have decades of story arcs, there is no excuse not to just jump in with something interesting instead of slogging through yet another boring origins story.
|
|
|
Post by junkyard on Jul 8, 2012 14:51:56 GMT -5
I think they needed the origin of the character but I liked the way the last hulk movie did it, tell it during the opening credits since we all already know it.
|
|
|
Post by junkyard on Jul 8, 2012 14:52:24 GMT -5
Although this origin kind of ties it in with his his parents
|
|
|
Post by junkyard on Jul 8, 2012 14:53:30 GMT -5
delbertgrady why did you not give the 70s movie a grade? It is the best (not really though)
|
|
|
Post by delbertgrady on Jul 8, 2012 16:51:51 GMT -5
If I gave the 70's one a grade, that would mean I would actually have to watch the whole thing I agree with you guys about not wanting to sit through an origin story again, if it could have been dealt with in less than a half hour then would of been OK with it. The parents subplot at the beginning seems like is going to be an important part of the story and is subsequently hardly dealt with. Suppose it's going to be addressed in a sequel. I will say one other thing I liked about the movie is Spidermans actual webslinging around the city looks even more realistic in this than in the previous films.
|
|
|
Post by junkyard on Jul 9, 2012 6:32:43 GMT -5
The parents story has been told in the comics so you can find it out even if they do not make another movie if you want to know what happened to them (although if they do tell it at the pics I am sure it will be very different)
|
|
|
Post by junkyard on Jul 9, 2012 6:34:49 GMT -5
A friend of mine actually ordered the series for me from a hong kong web site (you can guess the legality of it) and I cannot wait to watch it even though I do remember what it was like. I saw two of the movies they made from it in the cinema and was a very happy child.
|
|
|
Post by jamtomorrow on Jul 9, 2012 16:49:03 GMT -5
My kids (daughter, 15, son, 13) went to see this today, and they really liked it, especially because this spiderman was a marked improvement upon TM. They were very aware, however, that the movie was, in essence, the set-up for the sequel (and that one's sequel, and that one's sequel etc.)
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Jul 9, 2012 21:16:43 GMT -5
The parents subplot at the beginning seems like is going to be an important part of the story and is subsequently hardly dealt with. Suppose it's going to be addressed in a sequel. I will say one other thing I liked about the movie is Spidermans actual webslinging around the city looks even more realistic in this than in the previous films. Actually, from what I've read, the first film was going to deal with it, but was trimmed out of the final cut. In fact, one of the early trailers has Dr. Conner talking about experiments Parker's parents performed on him. Don't know if the followups will follow through on this, but I've heard enough to decide this one is a second run theater ticket (where they serve beer) or a Redbox rental.
|
|
|
Post by delbertgrady on Jul 10, 2012 14:40:59 GMT -5
I agree with what others have said about putting certain plot points in a movie only so they can actually be dealt with in sequels. A movie should stand on its own. With The Amazing Spiderman, it is on pace to make a decent profit so it looks like it will get a sequel but this is not always the case. Just last month Prometheus did the same thing leaving several plot points unanswered since they were "planning" a sequel. As of today, it's very much up in the air if there will even be one since it's on pace to only make a slim profit. There seem to be a lot of other wannabee "franchises" doing similar shenanigans.
|
|
bigmac
Revolting Revenant
You mean the movie lied!?!?!?
Posts: 1,508
|
Post by bigmac on Jul 10, 2012 22:02:25 GMT -5
Damn, I was so looking forward to another ranting from Ted. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Erutaron on Jul 11, 2012 12:14:45 GMT -5
I didn't have the same reaction to the film as delbertgrady...I rather enjoyed the film, and thought it was about "as good" as the first and second Spider-man films. Personally, I thought the acting was much better than anything in any of the Raimi films, and felt that Garfield made a better Peter Parker. I have to say the chemistry between Garfield and Stone was better than the Maguire/Dunst pairing.
Maybe it's just my age, but I also enjoyed the heavier emphasis on drama/character development as opposed to action set pieces.
I concede that the whole "origin story" concept was a bit tiresome, but at least it was handled in a fresh manner.
Ifans was OK as Connors/Lizard, and I appreciated the effort to make him a bit more 3-dimensional than the usual "villain" character, though i don't think he was as successful in being the "unwilling villain" as Molina was in SM2.
Plus...we finally get the "sarcastic spidey" from the comics :-)
- Tim
|
|