Star Trek Into Darkness
A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III
Gareth J. Von Kallenbach
It rarely stumbles into "terrible," but this "Spider-Man" never rises to anything, either. Where's the charm, the heart, the humor?
This comment has been removed.
Master P, did you mean you didn't find Raimi's films to be humorous? To have heart? Get Netflix. I didn't like the last one he did, but even that's better than this. Inferior in every single way -- casting, script, villain (WTH?) -- etc.
Jul 5 - 05:31 AM
Well i found it to be humurous, with a heart and some kind of charm but when I was like 14 or so.
Jul 5 - 05:34 AM
My issue is that people are criticizing this for being similar to Spider-man from 2002 in terms of major plot points, but the fact of the matter is that Sam Raimi did not invent the origin story for Spider-man, and they were both following the comics. That's besides the point though, because you're saying this movie was inferior to Spider-man 3, which is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. Casting-let's compare Peters...Andrew Garfield manages yet again to have the vast majority(obviously not you)of audience members connect emotionally with him, and this was probably the best casting decision Sony ever made. Tobey Mcguire was not even close to Peter Parker from the original comics. Peter was charming, and although Andrew and Tobey both were sort of awkward, Andrew did it in a way that was charming and fun to watch. Tobey was just plain old awkward, and couldn't handle being in normal society. He couldn't have a normal conversation with Mary Jane without staring blankly like he was on laughing gas for long periods of time, and need I bring up emo-Peter? When did Peter Parker EVER behave like that in the comics? Villain: Eddie Brock as Venom? Except the character never got the name Venom in the movie, and besides being a character named Eddie Brock who was (again) not even close to the character from the comic books, and also having a black suit with teeth, was nothing like the comic book character! The Lizard may not have looked exactly like th Lizard from the comics, but Curt Connors was the Curt Connors from the COMICS, and the Lizard had the right mindset and character as the COMIC BOOK villain! Script? I do think the script wasn't exactly fantastic in TASM, but to say that the script from Spider-man 3 was better...dude, you need to stop being a movie critic. I don't know what you're watching when you say this movie had no charm and humor, because you obviously saw a different movie than the rest of us. The humor and charm was wha drove this movie. And the heart it had...holy cow. If Andrew Garfield alone wasn't enough to make you feel like The Amazing Spider-man didn't have heart...I feel sorry for you. To say Spider-man 3 is better in every way is just asking for someone to tear you apart. Spider-man 3 made a lot of money, but ruined most of the characters it brought in or had going for them. Raimi's number 1 was good, but not better than this. Raimi's 2 was fantastic, and in my opinion I won't say if it's better or worse than The Amazing Spider-man. I preferred this, but that's just because of my taste in movies. Spider-man 3 is trash, and is the reason why Spidey needed a reboot. Stop being a critic, you just lost all credibility. I didn't even read your full review, because you literally destroyed your reputation with a few sentences.
Jul 6 - 08:29 PM
Exactly, Zack. Thing is, I just completely disagree on all of Roger M.'s (Moore's?) points -- this movie is superior in every way to all of Raimi's, and especially the 1st and 3rd: casting, script, villain, fx, humour, pacing, direction. Going in cranky that it's not a Raimi film? Well, then no movie will convince you otherwise. One of my favourite flicks, period, of the year so far.
I'm thinking you went in with the idea that this flick is a crass money-grab by a greedy studio (and what movie isn't?) -- and just didn't see what's there. I picture a bunch of notes like "Parker in school corridor -- Raimi did this better" "No J. Jonah Jameson!!!!" "Why is Mary Jane blonde!!!!!" "Ifan not Willem Dafoe." This thing was lousy with heart, charm and humor. The only serious misteps were clunky bits like "have you found yourself?" But, no, tehre wasn't broad, campy humour, broadly telegraphed heart or phony, stylized, engineered charm (see: Parker in jazz club).
If you want this to be Raimi's Spidey (or any Batman movie to be Tim Burton's) well, then you won't be satisfied.
And, maybe, check out Ultimate Spiderman, which this flick draws a lot from. A small tale of a brilliant, skinny kid who gets the crap beaten out of him while fighting bad guys -- and then gets called into the office for missing school.
Jul 6 - 11:05 PM
Jack S. ^ EXACTLY. This movie has a lot of similarities with Ultimate Spider-Man (while mixing from other stories and some original stuff). Come to think of it, their house almost reminds me of USM... could be crazy.
This movie is very different from the original Spider Man movie, in my opinion. It was a necessary introduction because even though we have characters with the same names, they are still different people. This Peter Parker has a different personality, there's introduction of his parents, artificial web slingers, Gwen Stacey, etc. I think it definitely beats the Raimi films, for me. Favorite movie of 2012 so far.
Jul 7 - 10:53 PM
I respectfully disagree with your opinion, sir! "Where's the charm, the hearth and the humor"? WTF?? The Amazing Spider Man was a great movie! The movie had hearth , Action, humor, it was true to the comics and the cast was amazing! Andrew Garfield was an EXCELENT Peter Parker and he is so funny in the scenes when he is spider man cracking jokes! The only problem was that they cut alot of deleted scenes , leaving the untold story yet to be told! Mark my words, the second movie will be epic!
Sep 24 - 01:29 PM
These comments are adorable.
Sep 29 - 01:08 PM
A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you.
Jul 5 - 06:30 PM
73% makes the film absolute trash. So you can shut up.
Jul 8 - 11:23 AM
have you ever read a comic book of spiderman
Jul 13 - 07:24 PM
Lets see you make a better movie
Besides no one gives a **** what you think.
So go live your life, go on a date with a girl or something.
Don't call something "trash" if you can't make it better.
You really should try and make it better. I'd like to see you fail.
And plus, if you're going to call something trash, don't post it on Rotten Tomatoes. I highly suggest you tell the director.
But of course, you'll probably won't. I'm going to guess that you'll use the excuse of "how do I contact him"
So just shut up. The movie was not trash.
Jul 14 - 10:32 PM
I didn't hate the movie, but your points are really bad. There's no point in contacting the director, because I'm sure he's much more busy than reading troll emails. Also, a movie like this costs millions to make. If he wants to say it's trash, let him, he can have his own opinion, just like you can have yours. Just because he says it's bad doesn't make his opinion less valid than you saying it's good. Sure, he didn't say any reasons it was trash, but you didn't say any reasons he was wrong.
Jul 15 - 10:48 AM
The notion that you can't critisize something as really bad if you can't do it better, is dumb as hell. We are not talking about food, or handwork that can be done by everyone. This is their job.
For example, I study Physics. Shouldn't I have an opinion on the movies that come out because I can't just go and film a better one?
In my opinion, the movie was trash. I was facepalming during half the film. It didn't work for me and neither for my friends that I dragged along and to whom I appologised afterwards.
I'll get my hundreds of millions of dollars and go ahead and film a better Spiderman movie. Oke?
Jul 23 - 12:40 PM
@Dylan... actually, the opinion of a random poster IS less valid than that a paid film critic. Your opinion on art is not on equal par with someone who studied art. You could think the Jonas Brothers are a better band then the Beatles... everyone is entitled to have an opinion and free to speak it, but that does not mean that all opinions are equal on all subjects.
Sep 16 - 03:21 PM
Yeah it was soo cool IMO too...but when I was like 13-14...now it's lame. TASM is way better than whatever Raimi did.
Jul 5 - 07:27 AM
You know I could just bust out a wicked arsenal of epic fails you made single-handedly in your review on just the film alone WITHOUT having to compare it to the first Spider-Man film OR the source material. If I did, you would probably be buried in your own shit and be subject to a firing at that hidey-hole you call a workplace for incredulous incompetence and failure at your job, aka. JOURNALISM. See, a JOURNALIST, would go out and at least investigate the source material, fuck you can find it on WIKIPEDIA of all places. If you cannot use the tools that are right there in front of your face, then you do not have a right to be paid for such criticism.
All of that and nary a comic book reference in sight. Now I turn my gaze to the tom-foolery on the RT commenters: Comic Book fans are even harsher critics than you could ever hope to be because the SECOND it is announced, they start hating it. First images of the suit? Hated it. Casting? Hate it. They will hate the piss out of this movie and lower their expectations to borderline piss-on-the-concrete level. To say that fans are "just being fanboys" is not only offensive, but innaccurate: They're the hardest audience to please! So to say that a film DID please them shows that the film got enough points right to win them over.
Now onto the film itself. First, I will start with direct comparison to 2002's Spider-Man.
Peter Parker is a nerdy kid who gets picked on. Why? Cause he likes science and wears glasses? It's never explained, EVER. Also, in 2012, nerds rule the world, so to have it updated that he is a skater and dresses like an alternative rocker immediately pegs him as someone generally not accepted by society; especially after he calls out the "Jersey Shore" crowd in Eugene "Flash" Thompson, for picking on somebody. In both renditions it is shown he is a photographer, and a science geek. In the original film, they ham up the photography aspect more than the science aspect. In this film, they decide to go the opposite route. There's nothing wrong with that and both are still present regardless of the version you watch. So why complain? Because there's no Jonah Jameson? Awww, muffin. Want a cookie? A backrub? Oh, I know! You're missing your binky.
In the entire first trilogy, Spider-Man gets off a total of 10 jokes, and at least 6 of them I barely consider a joke. In ONE rebooted film, he gets 9. All of them funny. Considering in the source material he fires off a joke in the suit practically every third line, I'd say that's accurate, wouldn't you? So to say there's no charm or humor in this Peter Parker is null and void and you just determined to hold onto the cock and balls of the last Spider-Man franchise.
The love interest. Sure in this film we get Gwen Stacy, whilst in the previous films we got Mary Jane Watson. Two different animals altogether, so there's no comparison. Gwen is a sweet, innocent, but highly intelligent young woman who is an intellectual match for Peter Parker and she is incredbily beautiful; Mary Jane on the other hand, as she is almost always written (save for the Ultimate Marvel Comics line where their personalities are switched) as a party girl. The kind who wouldn't look at a nerd twice, and the reason she is like this is because of her broken home life as opposed to Gwen's wholesome existence. On THOSE merits alone, your point is null and void.
Now onto performances: Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane was fairly accurate to the character's early appearences. I say this because Mary Jane comes off as a dumbass party girl for the first little bit, not getting interesting until about 20 issues (which is about 2 years of stories by the way) on. It's funny because Dunst can't act out of a wet paper bag. So I guess you can say the portrayal for the first film is accurate.
Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy on the other hand, save for giving her some witty dialogue to work with (which is more derived again from the Ultimate line), is fairly wholesome and doesn't like bullying anymore than Peter does. She always tries to do the right thing because that is how she was raised. In the comics, that is also true. Sure, in this rendition she isn't as meek or mild as she is in the comics, but from a realistic standpoint and in this day and age, a pretty girl would at least be aware she is and have a built-in defense mechanism against advancing boys. Note also that Gwen is Peter's first LOVE in the comics (not love INTEREST mind you, that being Betty Brant), and they met before they went out, unlike the whole "long awaited love bit" out of Mary Jane in the first film, which isn't even accurate to ANY of the comic books.
The villain. Willem Dafoe as The Green Goblin vs. Rhys Ifans as The Lizard. Dafoe is a fantastic actor and really does come off as out of his mind when he shifts into Goblin persona, as well as playing a smooth, confident businessman in Norman Osborn. But aside from that, there wasn't much t
Jul 5 - 02:55 PM
The villain. Willem Dafoe as The Green Goblin vs. Rhys Ifans as The Lizard. Dafoe is a fantastic actor and really does come off as out of his mind when he shifts into Goblin persona, as well as playing a smooth, confident businessman in Norman Osborn. But aside from that, there wasn't much to him. Why DID the Goblin want to kill Spider-Man? Because he stopped him from killing a pretty girl AFTER he already accomplished what he set out do? Ie. KILL A BUNCH OF PEOPLE SO HE CAN STAY RICH. Yeah... No motive. And while we see duality between the two halves, it's easy to see who is in control and there is barely any conflict shown between what is right and what is wrong. Even at the very end before Dafoe is impaled on his own sword, so to speak, you can tell who is in control, and they make little secret in pointing it out. Not that he isn't enjoyable to watch, but fairly two-dimensional.
Ifans as Dr. Conners on the other hand, you can really see the conflict in himself. Between wanting to fix his problems, but help other people without hurting them. Regrowing his arm in effect becomes a metaphorical and literal drug to him that he begins to think is morally acceptable to do, even when it isn't, and he wishes to share what he sees to other people. Like any other misguided person, he needs an intervention, and gets one, by way of the film's climax, but you genuinely see they tried to show you the conflict going on within him, especially concerning his relationship to the Parkers, first with Richard (we do not see it, but it is heavily implied), then with Peter. While he lacked the charm and wit of Norman Osborn, he made up for with the key thing a villain needs to do what he does: MOTIVATION!
Aunt May and Uncle Ben.
If you want to be a comic purist, then yes, the Sam Raimi film is a better choice for an accurate interpretation of the classic Aunt May and Uncle Ben: An elderly couple who raised Peter since childhood, one teaches him responsibility and then dies, the other almost always winding up in the hospital but providing Peter with an anchor. However, that doesn't really hold up very well from a LOGIC standpoint! How old must they be to raise a 17 year old kid before they start looking like grandparents and not aunt and uncle? Now in terms of performance, Cliff Robertson comes off as the Grandfather you always wanted: Wholesome, patient, and wise. Martin Sheen on the other hand comes off as the DAD you always wanted, which in effect is what Uncle Ben is to Peter: Compassionate, kind, but extremely firm when he wants to be. The chemistry between Sheen and Garfield is much more believeable than what we see between Robertson and Maguire, all 5 minutes of it... The new film establishes the chemistry between Uncle Ben and Peter so that when the inevitable gunshots ring out, we actually CARE about Uncle Ben going down. I can vividly remember crying at that scene, even though I knew it was coming for miles, it still was a great scene. Sally Field also is a much more relatable Aunt May and feels like the Mom you want, and not the one you get; she actually CARES and is SHOWN to care (and not just given a throwaway line) that Peter gets the living hell beaten out of him, or that his love life is in shambles. Rose Harris as Aunt May in the original feels like that senile Grandma you really wish would just croak already and are saddened when the Goblin DIDN'T finish her off.
We replace Jonah Jameson with Captain Stacy in this film as the resident Spider-Man hater, but whilst Jonah Jameson, portrayed by JK Simmons is a PERFECT casting, and that his character NEVER changes throughout the 50 years we've known him, and single-handedly saves the humor of the first trilogy, Dennis "Motherfucking" Leary as Captain George Stacy shows that he does have another side to him than just zipping out wisecracks: He shows that he wants to be a good cop, but lives in a real world and has to go on a journey to realize that by-the-book may not always be what is best for the city. We also see him as a good father to Gwen: Protective but understanding and questioning how far is too far. But even in the face of death, he goes out like a man, and the man you want to look up to. Both are great in their roles, so to say that one is better than the other would be an insult to both actors portraying their respective characters.
Final Sum up: Do I think the origin was necessary? Not really, even when kids in the front row still think this one is in canon with the first film, but on its own, it is a superior telling of the Origin of Spider-Man. The difference? The director and the audience. You know that this feels like? It feels like the class douchebag stole a project and made a film and everyone loved it, from the guy that nobody liked because of one reason or another, though usually entirely unjustified, who makes a really great project and story, but nobody wants to hear it because "Justin Bieber" over here did it firs
Jul 5 - 02:56 PM
Film reviewers don't have to be journalists and a lot don't have film expertise. It's entirely about their opinions.
Some, like Roger Ebert, I respect because his writing's terrific and he has an encyclopaedic knowledge of movie history. But bottom line, the worst of these guys are professional contrarians.
Jul 6 - 11:10 PM
"You know, I could bust out a thoughtful and meaningful critique of your review, but instead I'll write this ad hominem laced manifesto in defense of the new, based upon the merit of novelty alone!"
The funny part is, I was so powerfully bored by this apologetic's rant, I couldn't even make it through subheading "One", let alone the rest of that rambling sprawl. I wonder what's wrong with people like this, that they assume anyone will (other than the bobble-headed, in need of personal validation, of course).
Jul 7 - 11:46 AM
well why don't you look at that, a guy on the internet thinking he can undo somebody with a turn of phrase. awww soo adorable! I just wanna pinch your cheeks!
Jul 7 - 08:26 PM
It's obvious you didn't get very far in it...since you don't seem to understand it's not a rant, but actually takes the time to do what you won't do, which is compare and contrast the two movies like and educated person....
Jul 8 - 09:39 AM
"which is compare and contrast the two movies like and educated person...."
"And educated person," eh? You seem to be making some serious assumptions...not least of which is that this movie merits any sort of analysis of plot minutiae. Most critics say this version is not as well made, not as engaging, and from those who are Spider-man fans, not as faithful a telling of the story.
If, for example, you feel that the difference between mechanical and biological web shooters is in any way worth mentioning as essential to the character, congratulations, you've missed the point entirely.
Jul 11 - 12:08 PM
Actually, if you'd take the time to go around and read more reviews of this movie, or look at the percentage listed on the same page you're posting on, you'd realize that most critics think this is a good movie, and most Spider-man fans think this is much closer to the comics than Raimi's films. You don't want to talk about the webshooters? Okay. How about Gwen? How about the actual guy who killed uncle ben did it this time, and not Sandman? How about how Peter isn't completely inadequate at having a love life? How about how Peter used his powers only for his own gain at first, and not to help the citizens of New York? How about Peter actually having a decent sense of humor, and constantly making jokes? How about the fact that he was portrayed as being really smart, and how they continuously showed us that? I recall a couple instances in Spider-man 2 where they showed that, but overall, not so much. How about Oscorp being the scientific behemoth that it is in the comics, instead of just some place that Harry is the boss of, or the company that shuts down Norman Osborn? How about we have a Norman Osborn that's straight from the comics, where he's really creepy, actually comes with the trademark bowler cap, and doesn't have some weird alternate story for how he got his powers. How about we don't try to change major story arcs so that we can actually have a sequel to this? Spider-man 3 left us with nowhere to go, and the unanswered questions in this film let us theorize about a sequel! Marvel recently came out with a book that talks about all the different comics Mac Webb used when making this story, and I suggest you read it. Something tells me you don't read comics very much, and I've read almost every single Spider-man comic. I feel pretty confident making these "bold assumptions" when I see you say that 26% constitutes "most critics", and obviously every Spider-man fan except apparently myself and the other Spider-man fans I see who've posted on here agreeing with me make up the small percentage of the audience who didn't like it. Seriously, do your research (or use common sense) before you make a stupid claim like you just did. If you want to tell me that it's not a closer adaption of the comics than Raimi's was, I'll take you to school all day every day.
Jul 15 - 02:05 PM
Now I'll talk about the webshooters, since you deem them unimportant. They first and foremost show that Peter Parker is incredibly smart. Raimi could have just added that part in, and it would have shown a truer Peter Parker in the time it would take you to say "wow I'm Budgetmessiah and I have no idea what I'm saying". Besides that, they're a weakness for Spider-man. If they malfunction, or he runs out of web, or an enemy breaks them, it's a whole different ball-game. When you make Peter able to just shoot web out of his wrists(which he is able to do later in the comics, more on that shortly), he gets an advantage he didn't previously have. Now for the "shortly" segment: Peter is able to shoot biological webbing on a couple of instances. It's one of the perks that comes with the symbiote suit, which makes it that much more powerful than his normal suit, and harder to let go of. He also gets some extra power later in the comics allowing him to not only shoot biological webbing, but control the shape of his web. He could make web-hammers to fight with. Cool stuff. By throwing in the biological webbing right off the bat, you're erasing potential story elements you could have used later, say in Spider-man 3 for instance?
I'm going to call you out again, merely because I hate that you said most Spider-man fans would say this isn't as faithful of a re-telling. Seriously, I have only seen one person say "I'm a Spider-man fan and I didn't like it as much as Raimi's. It wasn't faithful to the comics at all". Us actual Spider-man fans then educated him severely before finding out he had only read one ultimate Spider-man comic during the Venom saga, and mistook Eddie Brock and Gwen Stacy as a couple, whilst thinking the MJ broke up with Peter because of the suit and Gwen. He was wrong on all counts, since he'd never read any of the previous or following comics, nor any comics from the spectacular Spider-man, Amazing Spider-man, Peter Parker: Spider-man, or any other Spider-man comics.
Jul 15 - 02:19 PM
I agree with the review. The script for this spiderman felt rushed and a lot of things that's suppose to matter didn't. I really like the cast and look of this spiderman better but script wise, this Spiderman failed. I felt no real cause for the villain, he turns into a lizard 3/4 of the movie then starts going crazy and wants to turn everyone into lizards like him. Uncle Ben dies and no funeral? Peter learns his responsibilities with his powers from saving a kid,not from Uncle Ben dying? Everyone has a right to their own opinion, I don't think this one is better than Raimi's version. It's not a bad movie, just didn't really give me anything new story wise.
Jul 10 - 03:37 PM
"Uncle Ben dies and no funeral? Peter learns his responsibilities with his powers from saving a kid,not from Uncle Ben dying?"
Jul 17 - 05:33 PM
Matt, "brevity is the soul of wit." And you're a staggeringly verbose wind bag. You're not pulling anything out because you're a blowhard pop-off without the wit to pull it off.
Jul 11 - 03:24 PM
says the guy who thinks Topher's Venom is better than Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker....
Jul 15 - 02:33 PM
Is this actually Roger Moore, the critic? Or, even, Roger Moore, the actor? Either way, "I know you are but what am I?" might not win as many hearts as you'd think.
Jul 17 - 05:38 PM
Final Sum up: Do I think the origin was necessary? Not really, even when kids in the front row still think this one is in canon with the first film, but on its own, it is a superior telling of the Origin of Spider-Man. The difference? The director and the audience. You know that this feels like? It feels like the class douchebag stole a project and made a film and everyone loved it, from the guy that nobody liked because of one reason or another, though usually entirely unjustified, who makes a really great project and story, but nobody wants to hear it because "Justin Bieber" over here did it first. So nothing can top that, can it? See? I just did your job for you. Shut up and get your points right before you decide to review a superhero film.
Jul 5 - 02:57 PM
*begins slow clap*
Jul 6 - 06:18 PM
*continues slow clap*
Jul 6 - 08:40 PM
Standing Ovation, and thank you...
Jul 8 - 07:00 AM
Can we be best friends? I only had to write a smaller version of what you wrote, because you had done it already. I'm one of those "fanboys" he was referring to, and this is my favorite comic-book movie of ALL TIME. Do I think it's the best comic-book movie out there? No! I believe Batman Begins holds that spot. But because I love the source material so much for this movie, I could appreciate the exceptional job they did. I can't go back and watch Raimi's films, because seeing Tobey as Peter would make me cry, because he's nothing compared to Andrew. I want to go back and see this movie over and over, because of almost the same reason. Seeing Andrew Garfield as Peter makes me cry. That's because I can connect on an emotional level with his Peter! He makes me get all emotional in this movie 3 times! 3 times in 1 movie, and Tobey couldn't get me to cry once in 3 movies!
last thing: in the words of Uncle Ben "Matt, you're me hero."
Jul 6 - 08:41 PM
Funny watching these "K"s agree with each other like bobble-head dashboard decorations, and proceed to embarrass themselves over at Movie Nation. Hey morons! If you're going to defend this pile of turds with "go read a comic" don't completely discredit yourself by showing that you don't know the Daily Bugle's offices were shown in ASM #1.
This "gritty" "edgy" version of Spider-man is a flop. Deal with it.
Jul 7 - 11:38 AM
BudgetMessiah on 07-7-2012 11:38 AM
Funny watching these "K"s agree with each other like bobble-head dashboard decorations, and proceed to embarrass themselves over at Movie Nation. Hey morons! If you're going to defend this pile of turds with "go read a comic" don't completely discredit yourself by showing that you don't know the Daily Bugle's offices were shown in ASM #1.
This "gritty" "edgy" version of Spider-man is a flop. Deal with it.
I find it funny that you would call it a flop but don't actually say how in your opinion it does this. Where as others have shown why we love it so much... It is an opinion and an opinion without fact or substance is well the drivel that you are spouting. So go back to your Rami doll and go cuddle in the corner.
Jul 8 - 07:06 AM
Bmessiah, it also wasn't shown in Ultimate Spider-man 1. If you want a film that is word for word, scene for scene straight from a comic book, then I'm sorry, those don't exist. I'll let you know if it's a flop once the numbers come out, because "flop" is a term referred to movies that do poorly with critics or the box office, and this (so far) has done neither of those things. I don't really get your point when you try to say that the Bugle offices were shown in ASM number 1...That Raimi's first film was somehow vastly superior because it included the Bugle offices, and therefore used a vast amount of the source material in it's creation? The Amazing Spider-man number 1 also didn't have Mary-Jane in it, so I say again, GO READ A COMIC.
Jul 8 - 09:37 AM
And if you want to go straight to the source material and say we're embarrassing ourselves, tell me, was there anything fun and campy about Gwen's death? Obviously this wasn't in the movie, but to me having your hero accidentally kill hi girlfriend, who doesn't even know that her boyfriend is also Spider-man, and the reason why she dies, falls more into the "edgy/gritty" side of things.
Jul 8 - 10:03 AM
"I find it funny that you would call it a flop but don't actually say how in your opinion it does this. "
I find it funny that you would find that funny. Surely you can produce a more accurate descriptor, unless you suddenly became mirthful upon reading my words.
In any case, it's a flop by consensus of critics, even the ones who aren't calling this reboot rotten are quick to draw unflattering comparisons to Raimi's version. And this isn't solely because a very similar story was told recently about the character.
Hypothetically, if there was no Raimi Spider-Man, this movie would stack up poorly to movies like X-Men FC or Iron Man, because the problem isn't the story's nitty gritties, it's the skill and art in telling the story that is leaving audiences flat.
Jul 11 - 12:16 PM
"And if you want to go straight to the source material and say we're embarrassing ourselves, tell me, was there anything fun and campy about Gwen's death? Obviously this wasn't in the movie, but to me [this] falls more into the "edgy/gritty" side of things."
Wow...Did you just say that some story element that doesn't even appear in this film is evidence that this film is edgy and gritty? How does that work?
Jul 11 - 12:20 PM
@Budget Messiah. Not in the slightest. I'm saying that stylistically the film is darker and grittier, that Sam Raimi's was too fun and campy, and that the source material fits more with Marc Webb's film than Sam Raimi's. And I couldn't help but notice earlier that you implied we were stupid because (apparently) Sam Raimi's film is closer to the comics because the Daily Bugle is in ASM #1. However, when I called you out on that, and all the details from the comics that this movie has that Raimi's doesn't didn't you tell me that the small little details aren't that important?
"not least of which is that this movie merits any sort of analysis of plot minutiae."
Isn't that being a little hypocritical? I'm still waiting for somebody to not like this movie but give me reasons why it's bad other than "the script wasn't great". Most critics say the acting was better, the stunts were better, the story was better, and stylistically this was better!
Jul 15 - 02:32 PM
One more thing before you write something else in retaliation and make a fool out of yourself again:
Scroll down, and give me numbers of how many people disagree with what Roger Moore and you are saying, and how many people disagree with me. Seriously, just do it. You'll feel worse about yourself, and I'll be happy.
Jul 15 - 02:44 PM
I lied...one MORE thing! You called it gritty and edgy first, not me. Just saying...
Jul 15 - 02:57 PM
From someone who has read the comics since i was 5, and has watched every TV show(even the live action ones), every movie, played every game based on this character, I can tell you right now that THIS movie is the closest you can get to a TRUE Spider-Man origin for a modern time. Yes when i saw Spider-Man in 2002 it was great....i was also 13 at the time...so my tastes have changed. I don't like movies that are cheesy unless they make that point evident from the start (ie. comedies, raunchy films, romance movies w/gf and so on) which Sam Raimi seems to love to just lay on the Ham and Cheese in his movies sometimes going from awkward humor to absolutely unnecessary. Heres how i see this movie is meant for....Sam Raimi geared it toward kids age 7-15 back in 2002, Mark Webb designed this movie to target those same kids from 10 years ago who are now 17-25 and he understands SOME people grow up and mature with age so he made this movie as a way to appease all of those kids who grew up
Jul 9 - 10:12 AM
Well put! I was super nervous to watch this movie because I honestly enjoyed all of the Spiderman movies- I'm not hard to please. But when I saw this new version, I ended up enjoying it- and after it ended, I was left wondering what they'll cook up for the sequel... because with the last words of the ending scene in the jail cell, you know there is going to be a sequel.
Jul 13 - 12:21 AM
budgetmessiah should read this
Jul 15 - 02:40 PM
I don't think that age group is entirely true. The Green Goblin gets impaled by his wing glider and blood is gushing from his mouth in the final fight. The Goblin also does some other acts that shouldn't be seen by a 7 year old. I actually believe Sam Raimi's Spider-Man was more adult and sophisticated than this one. It's not just about the look and the style, and the script for this movie was Twilight standards, it made me a little uncomfortable how bad it was at times. And if Sam was gearing his film towards 7-15 year olds, why would the film be PG-13? What about the loyal fans from the 80's, 70's, and even 60's? Are they just old farts latching on to their sorry past if they want to see these films because they were directed towards a different demographic?
Aug 10 - 12:29 AM
Aren't you the guy that used to play James Bond? Damn you look good for your age.
Jul 5 - 04:32 AM
I have to say, for once I agree with the RT lynch mob(although not for the same nonsensical reasons) in that this is a pretty bad review. Poorly written, very poorly edited, and the points for critique are suspect. e.g. I don't see how Denis Leary not being a joker comes off as a negative; the character and the respective performance is what should be judged here, not pre-conceived notions about the actor behind him. There's more of course, but I'll leave it at that. Not to say that he didn't genuinely dislike the movie, but the author needs to do a better job articulating why.
Jul 5 - 06:14 AM
You sir, are high. There was more of Spidey's smart ass humor and charm in this one than in all 3 of the previous films. Plus, the way I see it, if the first movie makes me almost cry at Uncle Ben's death scene, and this new one does make me cry at his death scene, I'd say they did a damn good job.
Jul 5 - 07:30 AM
That scene was so cheesy and rushed.
Jul 6 - 11:47 AM
which one the new one or the old one....because I would say the old one is more cheesy in that aspect
Jul 9 - 10:17 AM
I couldnt care less when he died in the new one, he had no character developement at all. In the old one, I almost cried.
Jul 11 - 06:35 AM
68 to 70%....right where it belongs....Marvel fans can beat the drums all they want but it's just ok summer fare and not much else.....
Jul 5 - 07:45 AM
Did you see it?
Jul 6 - 11:12 PM
...indeed I did...I wouldn't have commented on it if I hadn't.....did you?
Jul 7 - 09:39 AM
And in your opinion why is it "only ok Summer fare"? Some specific reasons would be nice, because I've yet to see one person specifically say why it's bad, and a ton of people say specifically why it's great.
Jul 8 - 09:42 AM
Isn't the flip-side of that generic comment what everybody said for "Prometheus?" I'm sure there are reasons everywhere. You just have to not ignore them.
Jul 15 - 05:40 AM
I'm not ignoring them. I'm well aware the script wasn't fantastic, but that's all I've seen besides "it's not funny" or "no heart or charm". If I'm going to read a movie review, I'm not going to have somebody tell me crap like that as if it's a fact, when I know for myself that the majority of people found it to have a lot of heart and humor. And since when does having an average script make the whole movie awful?
Jul 15 - 02:39 PM
I did. We both seem to be a rarity on this internet thing.
Jul 17 - 05:28 PM
I thought it had plenty of heart imo, the scene with the kid in the car? Man I held my breath during that, or everytime he came home beat to shit? That look on aunt mays face was heart wrenching. My opinons but I thought there were plenty of those moments.
Jul 5 - 08:55 AM
Except the reviewer went in expecting an inferior movie, and every beat was compared to Raimi's. So, we get this snobbish, knee-jerk review.
"But there's nothing like the lifelong love Peter held for Mary Jane in the original films. There's no romance to this."
The whole life long love thing was wrong. Peter met Gwen first and fell in love with her, after it didn't work out. Aunt May and her friend tried to set up Peter on blind dates with Mary Jane(she was May's friend's niece) which he refused until she finally showed up at his doorstep.
The chemistry between Garfield and Stone was great. A lot better than the chemistry between Tobey and Dunst.
"a movie that never answers that one simple question anyone outside of a corporate boardroom will ask.
Why was this movie made?"
This movie was made because Sony has the movie rights. In order to keep those rights they need to have movies made.
"Get past the cynicism behind Sony wanting to milk another movie from the "Spider-Man," franchise"
You obviously don't know anything. Before this reboot was even announced, it was made knowledge that Sony had 3 more Spider-Man movies planned. You know Spider-man right? The mega popular super hero that makes a lot of money. If Sony has the rights, or any company for that matter, to a franchise this popular. Why would they not make another movie? You do realize the main reason these companies release movies is to make money right?
"Peter doesn't aspire to a photography career, this time. There's no snappy banter with newspaper people, no newspaper at all. He's a budding scientist."
Peter never aspired to have a career in photography, Parker has always been a budding scientist. He is a very intelligent young man. You are comparing plot points in this movie to the 2002 version. You shouldn't Sam's version of Spider-man differs from the source material a lot. Peter eventually gets a job at the daily bugle, obviously he will at some point in the sequel.
Anyway you are entitled to your opinion, and its too bad you couldn't enjoy this movie like I did. But your lack of knowledge of the source material, hurts your review. You can't compare a reboot to the original when that movie is based off comic books. You go in with the notion like the original is the blueprint for this character when it isn't. This movie is a much more faithful adaption to the comics and you are bashing for it because it is different from the 2002 version.
Also there is more charm, heart and humor in this movie than the older ones IMO. Also this movie has way more emotion than the others.
Jul 5 - 08:56 AM
That this guy *doesn't* know why this movie was made is ridiculous. Couple that with a blatant disregard for the failings in the original trilogy that this version does better (lack of overarching guilt trip, actual chemistry), and this review is a failure.
Jul 5 - 01:48 PM
Where's the 'like' button?!
Jul 6 - 01:44 AM
Jul 17 - 05:31 PM
Joyce Dyan Fulgencio
^^^^ALL OF THIS.
I was pretty surprised to see people complaining about the "heart and humor" of the film. Those aspects were already so apparent to me while watching the film tbh.
I enjoyed it a lot, a few of my friends didn't, and it's mostly because they're still holding on to the Raimi versions.
I remember last year when I was ranting about this reboot. It's too soon. But fast forward a few months and this movie is already a favorite.
Jul 11 - 09:31 PM
Just admit it. He didn't like the movie but his opinion is significantly more sought after than yours. You just have to learn how to deal with it. It sucks when movies we like get that treatment but no need to get condescending.
Jul 15 - 05:44 AM
RM's complaint one: they shouldn't have made a remake.
RM's complaint two: this wasn't a remake.
Yep. Plus, they took a lot of elements from Ultimate Spider-Man, which was a smaller tale really focused on Parker just being a young kid dealing with all this craziness.
Jul 6 - 02:36 AM
After it didn't work out lol. He threw a web line to her foot when the green goblin threw her off the bridge and it broke her neck. I guess you could say it didn't work out.
Jul 12 - 09:33 PM
No Humor? Well you have to admit that the train scene where his hands stick to everything was boring and unfunny. The reason that I can say that is because I have no soul. /sarcasm
Jul 5 - 09:13 AM
And the word branzino being mentioned 136 times is weird-comedy gold.
Jul 17 - 05:30 PM
I love the old Spidey movies, but the reason I loved this one a bit more was because of it's charm, heart and humour. Also the web-shooters :P
Jul 5 - 09:28 AM
This is probably has the best romance in a super hero movie. Everyone in my theater loved the film cause of Garfield's amazing performance. They roared out in laughter when he smashed that clock and the toothpaste part. The quips he made and most Defiently the Stan led cameo which is the best thus far. It had great humor and a lot of heart especially towards the end when he becomes a hero.
Jul 5 - 10:40 AM
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I just saw it and there's no doubt there's a lot of charm, heart, and humor.
Jul 5 - 11:01 AM
you are so rite and i love this movie i was watching the tobey spider man movies they are good. I'm sorry but tobey is a bit dull and just isnt the best spidey. I love t
his new reboot
Jul 6 - 06:50 PM
...This movie was a lot funnier than any comedy movie I've seen all year. Get your head out of your ass
Jul 5 - 02:42 PM
This movie was funny, yes, but not funnier than Avengers or 21 Jump Street.
Jul 5 - 06:43 PM
The Avengers wasn't a comedy...
Jul 5 - 07:24 PM
Neither was this. What's your point?
Jul 5 - 11:26 PM