The Amazing Spider-Man - Nov 09, 2012 Reviews

[spawningblue]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Devoid?? I agree with the others. Garfield and Stone had MUCH better chemistry than McGuire and Dunst.

Agreed as well. And not sure why you would want it to be darker either? Spider-Man isn't Batman. I don't think it needs to be any darker as then it would not be Spidey.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Nothing obvious about it.

'cept the trolling.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

'cept the trolling.

So, offering an opinion about a certain film on a movie forum is trolling now? Is that what you internet police are calling it now? So, its better to just come in and say how this was the best movie ever and be done with it? Em Kay.

Either way, no chemistry at all in this film, like I was saying.

Originally Posted by spawningblue

Agreed as well. And not sure why you would want it to be darker either? Spider-Man isn't Batman. I don't think it needs to be any darker as then it would not be Spidey.

The "darker" comment was sort of a poke at the whole concept now of making Superhero movies "dark" since The Dark Knight had a much more serious tone than any previous comic book movie and of course in Hollywood, monkey-see, monkey-do. Thats why this Spiderman was supposed to be "darker" versus the Raimi films which are too cartooney. Superman is also getting this treatment via Man of Steel where we'll be greeted with a miserable, tortured-soul version of Superman. Because the world is clamoring for misery based superhero films.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

So, offering an opinion about a certain film on a movie forum is trolling now? Is that what you internet police are calling it now? So, its better to just come in and say how this was the best movie ever and be done with it? Em Kay.

No, not really...but here's the thing: I've watched 100's of movies over the years, thousands even and not all of them are good. In fact, some a quite horrible and were not worth the time watching them. What I don't do is post in their threads about how bad they were. What will possibly be achieved by me doing that other than getting a rise out of the members that do like said film, and wasting more of my time?
I believe in "cutting my losses" with just time spent on the bad film's viewing...not wasting any more of my time on it. I guess others have more time to waste!

But that's just me.

[i007spectre]

Received my Amazon copy. Came with slip.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

So, offering an opinion about a certain film on a movie forum is trolling now? Is that what you internet police are calling it now? So, its better to just come in and say how this was the best movie ever and be done with it? Em Kay.

This was the topic of another thread around here, forget the name. But i mentioned how it's interesting how most ppl agree in groups almost like lemmings. One person says they like something and the followers posters are in agreement. Someone says they like don't like it and then suddenly everyone's in agreement. It's the internet and anyone can say whatever they want and not mean it. Sure you could mean what you say, but you still haven't said why you think so. Not everyone flirts in the same way. I question their ability to get someone to top Emma Stone in this trilogy. Whoever plays MJ better be fricken amazing.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

So, offering an opinion about a certain film on a movie forum is trolling now? Is that what you internet police are calling it now? So, its better to just come in and say how this was the best movie ever and be done with it? Em Kay.

Either way, no chemistry at all in this film, like I was saying.



The "darker" comment was sort of a poke at the whole concept now of making Superhero movies "dark" since The Dark Knight had a much more serious tone than any previous comic book movie and of course in Hollywood, monkey-see, monkey-do. Thats why this Spiderman was supposed to be "darker" versus the Raimi films which are too cartooney. Superman is also getting this treatment via Man of Steel where we'll be greeted with a miserable, tortured-soul version of Superman. Because the world is clamoring for misery based superhero films.

Yeah, "darker" is not automatically better. Better is better, and better can be light-hearted.

[sephiroth61787]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

This was the topic of another thread around here, forget the name. But i mentioned how it's interesting how most ppl agree in groups almost like lemmings. One person says they like something and the followers posters are in agreement. Someone says they like don't like it and then suddenly everyone's in agreement. It's the internet and anyone can say whatever they want and not mean it. Sure you could mean what you say, but you still haven't said why you think so. Not everyone flirts in the same way. I question their ability to get someone to top Emma Stone in this trilogy. Whoever plays MJ better be fricken amazing.

It's going to be Shailene Woodley. I believe she was George Clooney's daughter in the movie "The Descendants".

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by sephiroth61787

It's going to be Shailene Woodley. I believe she was George Clooney's daughter in the movie "The Descendants".

Never seen her act but from the looks of it, I'm already disappointed. She looks like someone off of some Disney pop lineup.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

So, offering an opinion about a certain film on a movie forum is trolling now? Is that what you internet police are calling it now? So, its better to just come in and say how this was the best movie ever and be done with it? Em Kay.

Either way, no chemistry at all in this film, like I was saying.

What you're doing is taking one of the film's almost universally agreed upon strengths and claiming it to be a huge weakness. Yes, we all have opinions. And nobody says you have to like the movie, either. But the opinion you're expressing just isn't based on what happened on screen in the film. It undermines your credibility, hence many of us taking you to be a troll.

[spanky87]

I don't see what was so great about the relationship in this movie. Yeah, they gave it time, but they gave it too much time. And there wasn't much to the relationship, there was actually a whole lot of nothing going on.

3/4 of the movie was Gwen/Peter, and most of the time Peter would go to her house, and they would look at each other or deliver some of the weakest tween love dialogue I've heard all year....yawn. If anything, it was just the typical superhero romance, following the same usual formula, but this time it was more in your face.

Now Shailene Woodley is cast as MJ. The actress who has such a terrible look for that character, and gave the most overrated supporting performance of last year. That was such a predictably boring casting choice from Sony. I'm just going to have to accept that this new franchise is not for me, which sucks, because I love Spider-Man.

[Mandalorian]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Never seen her act but from the looks of it, I'm already disappointed. She looks like someone off of some Disney pop lineup.

There's a reason they say, "Don't judge a book by its cover." She was great in The Descendants.

[bttfiii]

darker is not always popular or makes more money

ask Whedon

but having said that ASM feels better overall due to the update effects. the first raimi film was groundbreaking and i loved it. on rewatching it again on Blu these days doesn't generate as much excitement for me due to the outdated CGI

[sukraj]

gunna watch this movie at the weekend.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by rickah88

No, not really...but here's the thing: I've watched 100's of movies over the years, thousands even and not all of them are good. In fact, some a quite horrible and were not worth the time watching them. What I don't do is post in their threads about how bad they were. What will possibly be achieved by me doing that other than getting a rise out of the members that do like said film, and wasting more of my time?
I believe in "cutting my losses" with just time spent on the bad film's viewing...not wasting any more of my time on it. I guess others have more time to waste!

But that's just me.

Hmm - I enjoy a differing opinion, even towards my favorite films. Like I asked, wouldnt these threads get old quick if every post was just "best movie ever", "best movie ever", "best movie ever"? Im a huge 2001 fan but there are plenty of people that cannot stand it. I LIKE to hear why they dont. Its one thing just to say a film is lousy or over rated but if you at least try to explian WHY you feel that why(which I sort of did) then its at least an interesting read, IMO.

Maybe someone will point out something that makes you go "oh yeah" whether it be good or bad? Ive actually read posts that helped me see things differently in films that were both improvements and detractions.

And, I didnt mean to imply the movie was terrible or anything - those are films that Id stay out of the threads for. But, films like TASM, which were much ballyhoed and I had high expectations for deserve some critiquing. Thats all.

Originally Posted by eastx

What you're doing is taking one of the film's almost universally agreed upon strengths and claiming it to be a huge weakness. Yes, we all have opinions. And nobody says you have to like the movie, either. But the opinion you're expressing just isn't based on what happened on screen in the film. It undermines your credibility, hence many of us taking you to be a troll.

Read the post directly after yours and hunt around a bit. Hit IMDB or any other forum. Its a universally agreed upon thing here with some of you guys but the other 3 billion people on the planet might not quite see it that way. Lets also take into account each users experience with character relationships in film and their development. Staring at each other in the chicks bedroom for half the film(as the poster below you correctly pointed out) isnt exactly character development or the makings of an intriguing love story but if thats what some people think it is then so be it. I enjoy trolling anyways - its a great way to catch lake salmon in the fall! You ever been fishing?

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Hmm - I enjoy a differing opinion, even towards my favorite films. Like I asked, wouldnt these threads get old quick if every post was just "best movie ever", "best movie ever", "best movie ever"? Im a huge 2001 fan but there are plenty of people that cannot stand it. I LIKE to hear why they dont. Its one thing just to say a film is lousy or over rated but if you at least try to explian WHY you feel that why(which I sort of did) then its at least an interesting read, IMO.

Maybe someone will point out something that makes you go "oh yeah" whether it be good or bad? Ive actually read posts that helped me see things differently in films that were both improvements and detractions.

And, I didnt mean to imply the movie was terrible or anything - those are films that Id stay out of the threads for. But, films like TASM, which were much ballyhoed and I had high expectations for deserve some critiquing. Thats all.

[Show spoiler]I enjoy trolling anyways

Threads, overwhelmingly, have "best movie ever" & "+1" anyway. That isn't going to go away. So your assumptions couldn't be further off base, as negative posts will always be met with resistance from the fans(which is why they post in the thread to begin with).
Some people just like to be "that guy" and buck the trend. I never understood the reasoning, myself, as it seems like a total waste of time. Never have I seen a fan say: "Oh yeah, ignore my previous 20 posts stating how much I like this movie, I just realized that I don't like it".
Nope, never happens.
By all means, though, keep being "that guy". I'm envious of all the free time you have at your disposal. You must have a lot, becuase I see you post negative feedback in serveral other threads.

[eastx]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Read the post directly after yours and hunt around a bit. Hit IMDB or any other forum. Its a universally agreed upon thing here with some of you guys but the other 3 billion people on the planet might not quite see it that way. Lets also take into account each users experience with character relationships in film and their development. Staring at each other in the chicks bedroom for half the film(as the poster below you correctly pointed out) isnt exactly character development or the makings of an intriguing love story but if thats what some people think it is then so be it. I enjoy trolling anyways - its a great way to catch lake salmon in the fall! You ever been fishing?

Did I mention that ignorant people's opinions are of little value to a film discussion thread? When I say almost universally, I mean the majority of critics and film enthusiasts. Not random people who don't know what they are talking about. Also, your clumsy use of hyperbole does figurative language a disservice.

[dirkblack]

I imported this to the UK, it has a UV Code that is US only, if anyone wants it PM me.

First Come, First Served.

[jwerk]

Originally Posted by dirkblack

I imported this to the UK, it has a UV Code that is US only, if anyone wants it PM me.

First Come, First Served.

That's really cool Thanks for sharing! (If I didn't already have it, I would take it)

[sephiroth61787]

Originally Posted by spanky87

I don't see what was so great about the relationship in this movie. Yeah, they gave it time, but they gave it too much time. And there wasn't much to the relationship, there was actually a whole lot of nothing going on.

3/4 of the movie was Gwen/Peter, and most of the time Peter would go to her house, and they would look at each other or deliver some of the weakest tween love dialogue I've heard all year....yawn. If anything, it was just the typical superhero romance, following the same usual formula, but this time it was more in your face.

Now Shailene Woodley is cast as MJ. The actress who has such a terrible look for that character, and gave the most overrated supporting performance of last year. That was such a predictably boring casting choice from Sony. I'm just going to have to accept that this new franchise is not for me, which sucks, because I love Spider-Man.

If you like Spider-Man, then you know what happens to Gwen. There was plenty going on in the relationship. The reason why it took so long to build up is because, clearly, Peter is awkward around girls. When you're awkward around someone, the relationship doesn't get going because you're spending a lot of time trying to figure things out. Such as "Does she really like me?". Plus, he had a lot on his mind with the death of his uncle.

I don't automatically think "That's MJ" when I see Shailene Woodley, but I'm willing to see what she brings to the role. They cast Gwen well. Let's hope she brings it as MJ.