The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

The Godfather Part II

The question as old as time itself...since about the mid 70's...

Which is better, The Godfather or its counterpart?

The Godfather Part II is about as tightly wounded as films can get, it's damn long yet it never wastes any of it's time. The structure is a tad strange, split between Vitio and Micheal to create a similar narrative path between the two, yet giving you huge chunks of the stories at once, but only a minor complaint to the film. Part II has more emotional shock and awe, creating huge emotional twists and letting them play out subtly. I'd go as far as to say Part II is the way stronger film in many respects.

But when it comes down to it, The Godfather is far more memorable, with many scenes sealed in the concrete of pop culture forever, The Godfather Part II seems to be largely unrespected in that respect, everyone loves it, but it's not as quoted as instantly or parodied. Not saying it necessarily makes it a weaker film, but many would probably be able to name more scenes from The Godfather than The Godfather Part II.

Anything I said in the first Godfather review still stands relevant here of course. These films are the masterclass of filmmaking

10/10

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Foggy

The Godfather Part II

The question as old as time itself...since about the mid 70's...

Which is better, The Godfather or its counterpart?

The Godfather Part II is about as tightly wounded as films can get, it's damn long yet it never wastes any of it's time. The structure is a tad strange, split between Vitio and Micheal to create a similar narrative path between the two, yet giving you huge chunks of the stories at once, but only a minor complaint to the film. Part II has more emotional shock and awe, creating huge emotional twists and letting them play out subtly. I'd go as far as to say Part II is the way stronger film in many respects.

But when it comes down to it, The Godfather is far more memorable, with many scenes sealed in the concrete of pop culture forever, The Godfather Part II seems to be largely unrespected in that respect, everyone loves it, but it's not as quoted as instantly or parodied. Not saying it necessarily makes it a weaker film, but many would probably be able to name more scenes from The Godfather than The Godfather Part II.

Anything I said in the first Godfather review still stands relevant here of course. These films are the masterclass of filmmaking

10/10

Great movie right there!!! Glad you liked it.

[Foggy]

Starship Troopers

A lot of people love this film, I'm struggling to see why...

Not a badly made film, it's rather corney but I'll accept it if I'm having fun, the things is though that I wasn't

I wasn't invested in what was going on, I wasn't excited during the action scenes, I didn't care for who lived or who died, I just wasn't digging it. Not to say I was bored or didn't enjoy it, but give it a week and I'll forget I've ever seen it.

I did like the faux-properganda scenes as a creative way to put across exposition, and the special effects are still pretty cool considering the way late 90's films looked

Again, it wasn't boring, its just really hard to see why this is rated so highly.

6/10

[jvince]

The Last Picture Show (1971)
An impressive and masterful work of art by Peter Bogdanovich. Boasts a remarkable ensemble that includes Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepherd, Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn, Ben Johnson, Eileen Brennan, Randy Quaid, Sam Bottoms, Clu Galager, and Timothy Bottoms. Robert Surtees is a master cinematographer. This and The Graduate are gorgeous perfections. One the finest films about high school along with American Graffiti and Dazed and Confused. A new favorite.

[Al_The_Strange]

“The Amazing Spiderman”

It’s pretty damn hard to approach this movie on its own merits; it’s only been ten years since Sam Raimi’s first “Spiderman” film, and only five years since his series was rounded off in “Spiderman 3.” With these films still fresh in the consciousness, one can’t help but to approach this reboot with the forethought that it’s completely frivolous and unnecessary, especially since it covers some of the same ground as the first original “Spiderman” film. Chances are that your decision to see and enjoy this film will be entirely biased based on your views on this, and your opinion on the other Spidey films. Hated Tobey McGuire and Sam Raimi’s cartoonish style? Then perhaps this reboot will satisfy you better. Otherwise, you really will think it’s unnecessary.

If you can push your memory of the other films out of your head, “The Amazing Spiderman” is a perfectly serviceable blockbuster. It has its share of action and special effects, especially toward the end with the climactic duel between Spiderman and the villain (and, as always, the entire city is at stake). There are some fun heroics in the middle of the film. Even when Spidey isn’t kicking butt and taking names, the movie’s comedy is successfully funny and the melodrama/romance is not too overbearing. If anything, I felt this movie’s drama was more entertaining than in the other “Spiderman” films, thanks largely to the film’s style and acting, but I’m sure other viewers may disagree. The pacing is admittedly not perfect; some parts whiz by and skim over some plot points, while other parts took their time. The best that can be said is that the film rarely dragged.

The story is familiar territory, albeit told differently. It may irk some viewers to have to sit through Peter Parker’s drama all over again; I also found it a little disconcerting that many details have been withheld, presumably to be revealed in a sequel. Still, the film does a fine job of telling the origin story, detailing the main character’s transformation into a superhero, and establishing all the characters and their relationships.

Filmed with solid, quality photography, the film looks stylish, without being cartoony like Sam Raimi’s films. The editing is good most of the time, with only a few parts that appeared choppy. Acting is pleasing; Andrew Garfield is impeccable as Peter Parker, Emma Stone makes for a perfectly likable love interest, and Rhys Ifans does his best with the villain. The writing is pretty decent. This film features plenty of good-looking sets, props, and costumes. There are some special effects that don’t look that good, but most hold up. Music is pretty decent.

Ultimately, I felt it was a good film, and I really can’t say whether I prefer this one or Sam Raimi’s films better. As it is, I like them all pretty equally. As for recommending “The Amazing Spiderman” to anybody else, I would only recommend a rental, because your enjoyment will depend on many variables.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: I dunno...

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

The Last Picture Show (1971)
An impressive and masterful work of art by Peter Bogdanovich. Boasts a remarkable ensemble that includes Jeff Bridges, Cybill Shepherd, Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn, Ben Johnson, Eileen Brennan, Randy Quaid, Sam Bottoms, Clu Galager, and Timothy Bottoms. Robert Surtees is a master cinematographer. This and The Graduate are gorgeous perfections. One the finest films about high school along with American Graffiti and Dazed and Confused. A new favorite.

I cant believe that I have never seen this.

Added to queue. Thanks.

[Romulus]

The Dark Knight Rises is coming out in less than 2 weeks, which will bring an end to the Nolan Trilogy. With this in mind, I decided that I was going to re-watch the Batman films -- starting with the 1989 version*.

*I tried finding the 1966 version to no avail. I could have bought it, but I hadn't seen the film before and I hardly ever blind buy.


Batman (1989)

Before The Dark Knight was released, people questioned wether or not Ledger would be able to put on a performance on par with Nicholson -- let alone exceed it.

Suffice to say, I definitely prefer Ledger's take on the Joker. Nicholson's Joker isn't bad by any stretch, in fact it's easily the best part of the film. I certainly can't blame Nicholson for his vision of the Joker when Burton and Nolan's bat-universe are remarkably different.

That's where my opinion largely differs as I greatly prefer Nolan's Batman films to Burton's. I felt that the writing was extremely lousy and some of the scenes were flat out cheesy. I actually shuddered at the part

[Show spoiler]where the Joker and his thugs dance through the museum and spray paint the art.

I'm actually pretty surprised how many people like the '89 Batman. I feel like people remember how great Nicholson's performance is and completely forget the other aspects of the film. The characters outside the Joker are forgettable, the action is pretty poor, and I really found myself bored throughout certain parts of the film.

One element that I picked up on was the male's greed around women and the use of phallic symbols to win these women over. Looking back at the film many of the conflicts arise because of a woman. For example:

[Show spoiler]The only reason Jack becomes the Joker is because Carl Grissom sets him up to take his girl away from him. Following this, he murders Carl and regains his woman. When she commits suicide, the Joker puts his attention on Vicki Vale -- thus escalating his conflict with Batman who is courting her as well.

In fact, three men pursue Vicki Vale. The Joker, Batman, and reporter Alexander Knox all seemingly try to impress Vicki with the use of phallic symbols.

At the beginning of the film Alexander Knox approaches Vicki Vale. When he realizes that she is a reporter, he responds that if she's going to photograph him nude that she is going to need a "long" lens.

Simply put, Alexander Knox cannot compete with either The Joker or Batman. When Batman rescues Vicki Vale with the Batmobile, it's easy to see the long shaft of the Batmobile that coincides with Batman's power and dominance over Vicki - whom is ultimately won over by Batman at the end of the film. During the following battle between Joker and Batman during the parade, The Joker pulls out a long pistol from his pants (symbol here explains itself).

The Joker's end of course during a moment of sexual tension with Vicki Vale at the end. When she goes down on him he has a lapse in judgement before Batman blind sides him, from here the final battle takes place and the Joker falls to his death.

I can't say I'm a huge fan of Batman. I really do love the films that Nolan put together and definitely prefer his vision over Burton's. That's not to say that Nolan's films are just better -- Burton's Batman does have some flaws that really drag it down in my eyes.

2/5

[Diesel]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

“The Amazing Spiderman”

[Show spoiler]It’s pretty damn hard to approach this movie on its own merits; it’s only been ten years since Sam Raimi’s first “Spiderman” film, and only five years since his series was rounded off in “Spiderman 3.” With these films still fresh in the consciousness, one can’t help but to approach this reboot with the forethought that it’s completely frivolous and unnecessary, especially since it covers some of the same ground as the first original “Spiderman” film. Chances are that your decision to see and enjoy this film will be entirely biased based on your views on this, and your opinion on the other Spidey films. Hated Tobey McGuire and Sam Raimi’s cartoonish style? Then perhaps this reboot will satisfy you better. Otherwise, you really will think it’s unnecessary.

If you can push your memory of the other films out of your head, “The Amazing Spiderman” is a perfectly serviceable blockbuster. It has its share of action and special effects, especially toward the end with the climactic duel between Spiderman and the villain (and, as always, the entire city is at stake). There are some fun heroics in the middle of the film. Even when Spidey isn’t kicking butt and taking names, the movie’s comedy is successfully funny and the melodrama/romance is not too overbearing. If anything, I felt this movie’s drama was more entertaining than in the other “Spiderman” films, thanks largely to the film’s style and acting, but I’m sure other viewers may disagree. The pacing is admittedly not perfect; some parts whiz by and skim over some plot points, while other parts took their time. The best that can be said is that the film rarely dragged.

The story is familiar territory, albeit told differently. It may irk some viewers to have to sit through Peter Parker’s drama all over again; I also found it a little disconcerting that many details have been withheld, presumably to be revealed in a sequel. Still, the film does a fine job of telling the origin story, detailing the main character’s transformation into a superhero, and establishing all the characters and their relationships.

Filmed with solid, quality photography, the film looks stylish, without being cartoony like Sam Raimi’s films. The editing is good most of the time, with only a few parts that appeared choppy. Acting is pleasing; Andrew Garfield is impeccable as Peter Parker, Emma Stone makes for a perfectly likable love interest, and Rhys Ifans does his best with the villain. The writing is pretty decent. This film features plenty of good-looking sets, props, and costumes. There are some special effects that don’t look that good, but most hold up. Music is pretty decent.

Ultimately, I felt it was a good film, and I really can’t say whether I prefer this one or Sam Raimi’s films better. As it is, I like them all pretty equally. As for recommending “The Amazing Spiderman” to anybody else, I would only recommend a rental, because your enjoyment will depend on many variables.

4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: I dunno...

Correct

This will look...wait for it...amazing () on blu-ray

[jvince]

The Exorcist III (1990)
Author William Peter Blatty takes the helm for the true sequel to William Friedkin's 1973 classic. George C. Scott and Brad Dourif deliver great performances. Final act gets a bit muddled but that's the studio's fault. It would be interesting to see the director's cut. Features what is perhaps one of the scariest and most nerve-wracking sequences ever filmed. One of the better horror sequels around. A tad underrated too.

[jvince]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I cant believe that I have never seen this.

Added to queue. Thanks.

It's a slow, slice-of-life type of film. Quite similar to American Graffiti and Dazed and Confused, but I think it's the best of the bunch.

[Foggy]

Watched The Goonies, not much needs to be said - 8/10

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Diesel

Correct

This will look...wait for it...amazing () on blu-ray

What's more, I went and watched the first original "Spider-Man" last night. So here's a short review:

The action's great, very frequent, with lots of fun scenes. Lots of 'splosions. Lots of cool slow-mo and nice-looking special effects (becoming quite dated now though). Some fine comedy. Just a little bit of drag, thanks mostly to some sappy drama/romance.

The story is fine and dandy; it does a great job with setting up the characters and relationships. Hero and villain origins are quite cheesy, like everything else in the movie. Parts of it are quite far-fetched, but for a superhero movie (and with this much cheesiness), it's pretty easy to dismiss all the outlandish scenes.

The film is well-framed and edited, with a certain level of wild, in-your-face style that Sam Raimi is often good for. Acting and writing are not bad; Tobey McGuire looks the part and acts heroic enough, but his character tends to be a little too emo; I used to dig Kirsten Dunst as MJ, but I found her somewhat unlikable this time around; Willem Dafoe is the man! This production has sets, props, and costumes that look good, but are showing their age and fakeness. Music is alright.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

On Blu-Ray, there's some grain/noise, but it still looks very sharp and clean, with good color and contrast. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5



Now, the inevitable comparison to "The Amazing Spiderman"...

Yeah, the original one entertained me a little more, but with the reboot out, it definitely shows its flaws more. I've always known that "Spiderman" was cartoony and cheesy, but it seems even moreso now. Sets, props, and special effects are not aging well. The plot skims through enough content to fill many movies (considering that "Amazing Spidey" only covers Parker's high-school years, whereas it constitutes maybe 30 minutes of "Spiderman"). The drama revolving around Uncle Ben seems more fleshed out in "Amazing Spidey," I think because Ben and May both have more screen time, more lines, stronger personalities, and overall convey the theme of responsibility a little more relevantly. The romance doesn't drive the main character in "Amazing Spidey" the way it does in "Spidey." Peter Parker is definitely wimpier in "Spidey" than "Amazing Spidey," and is also a shallower character and weaker performance (sorry Tobey). However, "Spidey" does have more action collectively, more heroics on screen, and it's a lot easier to watch; "Amazing Spidey" doesn't drag much, but action is not as prominent.

In light of all this, I think "Spiderman" is a little funner, but "Amazing Spiderman" is a stronger film and story.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

[Show spoiler]What's more, I went and watched the first original "Spider-Man" last night. So here's a short review:

The action's great, very frequent, with lots of fun scenes. Lots of 'splosions. Lots of cool slow-mo and nice-looking special effects (becoming quite dated now though). Some fine comedy. Just a little bit of drag, thanks mostly to some sappy drama/romance.

The story is fine and dandy; it does a great job with setting up the characters and relationships. Hero and villain origins are quite cheesy, like everything else in the movie. Parts of it are quite far-fetched, but for a superhero movie (and with this much cheesiness), it's pretty easy to dismiss all the outlandish scenes.

The film is well-framed and edited, with a certain level of wild, in-your-face style that Sam Raimi is often good for. Acting and writing are not bad; Tobey McGuire looks the part and acts heroic enough, but his character tends to be a little too emo; I used to dig Kirsten Dunst as MJ, but I found her somewhat unlikable this time around; Willem Dafoe is the man! This production has sets, props, and costumes that look good, but are showing their age and fakeness. Music is alright.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Good)

Recommendation: Sure, why not?

On Blu-Ray, there's some grain/noise, but it still looks very sharp and clean, with good color and contrast. Sound quality is good.

PQ: 4/5, AQ: 4/5



Now, the inevitable comparison to "The Amazing Spiderman"...

Yeah, the original one entertained me a little more, but with the reboot out, it definitely shows its flaws more. I've always known that "Spiderman" was cartoony and cheesy, but it seems even moreso now. Sets, props, and special effects are not aging well. The plot skims through enough content to fill many movies (considering that "Amazing Spidey" only covers Parker's high-school years, whereas it constitutes maybe 30 minutes of "Spiderman"). The drama revolving around Uncle Ben seems more fleshed out in "Amazing Spidey," I think because Ben and May both have more screen time, more lines, stronger personalities, and overall convey the theme of responsibility a little more relevantly. The romance doesn't drive the main character in "Amazing Spidey" the way it does in "Spidey." Peter Parker is definitely wimpier in "Spidey" than "Amazing Spidey," and is also a shallower character and weaker performance (sorry Tobey). However, "Spidey" does have more action collectively, more heroics on screen, and it's a lot easier to watch; "Amazing Spidey" doesn't drag much, but action is not as prominent.

In light of all this, I think "Spiderman" is a little funner, but "Amazing Spiderman" is a stronger film and story.

A fair comparison.

I think the Spider-Man character himself was better in Amazing than any of the Sam Raimi trilogy. Besides the excellent cast, the main thing that got me excited to see the reboot was when I saw the trailer and could tell I was finally going to see Spider-Man be the smart ass he is. That wasn't completely lacking in the other trilogy, but it was barely there.

I've been a big supporter of Sam Raimi's trilogy with Spider-Man being my favorite comic book character, even to this day with all of the other comic book movies that have come out since, but I think the main reason why there is less action in The Amazing Spider-Man is because they took more time to develop the characters. I'm not saying the other trilogy is hallow, because it's not, but I really didn't mind spending time with all of the characters before the action got going. Once the action got going though, it was pretty well done, and made even better by the very solid 3D during the action sequences.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

A fair comparison.

I think the Spider-Man character himself was better in Amazing than any of the Sam Raimi trilogy. Besides the excellent cast, the main thing that got me excited to see the reboot was when I saw the trailer and could tell I was finally going to see Spider-Man be the smart ass he is. That wasn't completely lacking in the other trilogy, but it was barely there.

I've been a big supporter of Sam Raimi's trilogy with Spider-Man being my favorite comic book character, even to this day with all of the other comic book movies that have come out since, but I think the main reason why there is less action in The Amazing Spider-Man is because they took more time to develop the characters. I'm not saying the other trilogy is hallow, because it's not, but I really didn't mind spending time with all of the characters before the action got going. Once the action got going though, it was pretty well done, and made even better by the very solid 3D during the action sequences.

I wouldn't get too excited for his wise cracks, he only does them in two scenes, and the small knife scene has been advertised to death

[Evra]

The Amazing Spider-Man

4/5

This review contains mild spoilers.

[Show spoiler]I feel sorry for The Amazing Spider-Man. It is fighting a battle it will never win against fans and critics. If the film ends up being bad, it will end up being a case of “I told you so, should have continued with Raimi’s vision” whereas if it turns out being good, it would be a case of “Yeah but we did not really need to have another origins story about Spider-man anyway.”


It is easy to dismiss The Amazing Spider-Man as a complete rehash of Sam Raimi's very successful Spider-Man and while the first hour is indeed a retelling of Peter Parker's origin, the manner in which the origins story is told is very different. At the core of the film is Peter Parker and without any knowledge on the source material and with only Tobey Maguire's performance as reference, I can undoubtedly say I prefer Andrew Garfield's portrayal as Peter Parker.

Meet the new and improved Peter Parker.
Garfield's Parker is smart, confident and slightly cocky. While he will not win a fight, he does not shy away from one if it is for the right cause. As Peter Parker's character evolves throughout the film, Garfield captures the various emotions of Peter Parker with a sense of likability that was almost non-existent with Tobey Maguire's character. It speaks volumes that Tobey Maguire's performance as Peter Parker is best remembered as a meme on joke sites. As much as I could see Garfield's Peter Parker as the angst teenager reeling from the lost of his parents, I too could see Parker as the web-slinging superhero or the love smitten high school kid .

The Amazing Spider-Man is a film that places the characters and relationships at its core. The main relationship in the film is between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) and the on-screen chemistry between the two is incredible. Both Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield bring a sense of youthfulness, innocence and charming awkwardness that makes the relationship utterly believable on-screen.

Gwen Stacy is not just here to be in a wet t-shirt.
Fans of Marc Webb will not be surprised to hear this considering he directed 2009's sleeper-hit (500) Days of Summer which received similar praise in its handling of the on-screen romance. It also speaks volumes about Marc Webb’s background in music videos directing that perhaps the most exhilarating and heartwarming sequence in the film is when Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) skateboards in an industrial factory to the tune of Coldplay’s Till’ Kingdom Come in the background after flirting and setting a date with Gwen Stacy.


I have heard much criticism directed at the film that it is intended for the Twilight generation. I have no idea what it means but I assume that it is a slight towards the film's focus on the characters and their relationships opposed to the action but in my opinion, that is the film's greatest strength. This is a film about a teenager who happens to develop superhuman abilities and not a superhero film in the mould of Thor or The Avengers.


It is often said that comic-book films are only as good as the villains but The Amazing Spider-man is a rare exception where the hero is actually the main strength of the film. As good an actor as Rhys Ifans is, it is hard to portray any sort of emotion when you appear as a giant green abomination on-screen and as a result, the film's villain pales in comparison with Doctor Octavius in Spider-Man 2. It also does not help that both Curt Connors and Doctor Octavius have similar split-personalities as a result of their transformation making The Lizard an inferior retread of Spider-Man 2's villain.


Being Webb's second feature film and his first big-budget film, The Amazing Spider-Man suffers a little bit when it comes to action sequences. I must admit being a little put off with the first-person view of the web slinging and would have honestly done without it. As exciting as some of the action sequences are in The Amazing Spider-Man, they come across as lacking a little imagination as there was nothing that was as pulsating as the clock tower fight or the train-fight sequence between Spider-Man and Doctor Octavius from Spider-Man 2. There is a fight sequence on board a train in The Amazing Spider-Man but it is more for comedic effect rather than suspense and is just one of the sequences where Garfield really proves his mettle as a great Peter Parker.


Another problem I have with The Amazing Spider-Man is the fact that at 136 minutes, I feel that the film is being overambitious by biting onto more than it can chew. A case in point would be when Peter goes hunting for Uncle Ben's killer. He goes hunting down similar looking criminals for twenty odd minutes and then poof...no mention at all as to why Peter stopped hunting. Then there is Dr. Rajit Ratha who is hunted by The Lizard on the suspension bridge...poof, we have no clue as to what happens to him after that. All of these sudden change in focus is rather jarring and I cannot help but feel that the film would have benefited by expanding certain plot points a little bit more.



"I will be the centre of attraction this time!" - Stan Lee
While I never had any problems with Stan Lee making cameos in Marvel Comic adaptations, I have to be honest and say that I absolutely hated the cameo in The Amazing Spider-man and the cameo ruined the immersion I had in the middle of an intense fight between The Lizard and Spider-man. It was obvious from the start that Stan Lee was standing in front of a blue-screen while the Spider-man and Lizard fight was happening in the background. As far as cameos go, I always believe in Hitchcock's advice - "Get it over and done with by having it early on in the film."


The Amazing Spider Man isn't a perfect film. There will be moments where you will be screaming out "What on Earth was he thinking?" like I did when Peter Parker bing!-ed his father online. You would think a kid as inquisitive and bright as Peter Parker would have done that years ago but no, he does it only after seeing a bag belonging to his father as if forgetting his father went missing until he saw the bag. However, The Amazing Spider Man has its heart in the right place and is filled with hard-hitting emotions. I felt tugs at the heart when characters died, I felt "awwww..." at particular scenes, I laughed at some of the funnier sequences and I gasped during the fight scenes between Lizard and Spider-Man. Comparing this with Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, I do not see myself watching that film again now we have The Amazing Spider-Man. This Spider-Man isn't perfect, but I never thought I could care about Peter Parker that much and that to me, is quite amazing.


4/5


Note: Having invested so much in the Peter Parker & Gwen Stacy relationship, I anticipate the sequel with dread if they do intend to pursue the notorious story-arc involving Green Goblin and Gwen Stacy.


Observation: I noticed that there was a Rear Window poster in Peter Parker's room. Is there any meaning behind it?


Recommendation: If you are a fan of The Amazing Spider-Man for its on-screen romance, I thoroughly recommend (500) Days of Summer which remains one of my favorite romantic comedies of all-time.

Source: http://watchordontwatch.blogspot.com/

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I wouldn't get too excited for his wise cracks, he only does them in two scenes, and the small knife scene has been advertised to death

Ummm, I've already seen the movie.

He acts like that basically throughout the movie. He doesn't just turn it on for a couple of scenes. Some that come to mind are

[Show spoiler]the scene with the car jacker, then of course the knife, then during the fight in the school with Lizard when he webs Lizard's mouth shut, the scene with him in the gym with the basketball, and when he comments about Gwen's doorman when he comes in her window the first time.

[idlebrain]

Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974
A rookie journalist looks to solve the increasingly vexing case of a serial killer on the loose.
After watching Amazing Spider-man, started digging Andrew Garfield's other works. I liked him in social network.
This is quiet a dark and violent British thriller based on novel by David Peace . If you want to see Andrew's potential as an actor, this is it. He is excellent as struggling journalist.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

Ummm, I've already seen the movie.

He acts like that basically throughout the movie. He doesn't just turn it on for a couple of scenes. Some that come to mind are

[Show spoiler]the scene with the car jacker, then of course the knife, then during the fight in the school with Lizard when he webs Lizard's mouth shut, the scene with him in the gym with the basketball, and when he comments about Gwen's doorman when he comes in her window the first time.

Oh right, I knew you avoid watching films in the theatre a lot and you where talking about the trailer. But I still think he doesn't wisecrack a lot when fighting enemies, plus I wouldn't really consider the doorman line to be a proper wisecrack

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Oh right, I knew you avoid watching films in the theatre a lot and you where talking about the trailer. But I still think he doesn't wisecrack a lot when fighting enemies, plus I wouldn't really consider the doorman line to be a proper wisecrack

True, you are right that I don't watch that much in the theater. I just figured what I said made it obvious that I saw this already. Oh well.

Let's just agree that the character is more in line with the comics in terms of the way he acts regardless of how many wisecracks/jokes that we feel were in the film, which was really the chief complaint I had with the original trilogy that I still loved. I'll ignore Venom.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by KilloWertz

True, you are right that I don't watch that much in the theater. I just figured what I said made it obvious that I saw this already. Oh well.

Let's just agree that the character is more in line with the comics in terms of the way he acts regardless of how many wisecracks/jokes that we feel were in the film, which was really the chief complaint I had with the original trilogy that I still loved. I'll ignore Venom.

I'll drink to that, I agree that 3 has it's moments