|
Post by CJ on May 5, 2014 15:27:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 5, 2014 15:37:42 GMT -5
I have not watched The Amazing Spider-Man 2 yet, and I most likely won't watch it in theaters.
I did not enjoy the the the first film. Why? Hard to say. I just didn't feel like the actor portrayed Spider-Man really well. He didn't feel like Spider-Man. Beyond the web slinging, I didn't feel like I was watching Spider-Man.
|
|
|
Post by Hitotsumami on May 8, 2014 11:06:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Morcombe on May 9, 2014 18:22:22 GMT -5
I loved ASM 2, it's my new fav. Though what I like compared to others is usually much different as I liked Spider-Man 3. But then I like all 5 of the movies but Webb's movies outdo Raimi's for me. If I were to rank the movies it would go as. 1. Amazing Spider-Man 2 An actual reason for the relationship drama between Pete and Gwen with the haunting memory of her father. A new direction with the Goblin rather than just repeating Norman, you could say it's recycling SM3 but this one is just portrayed so much better and he was never called Green Goblin in Raimi's, Electro was awesome on the big screen, the inclusion of the whole backstory with Pete's parents adding a greater layer of depth to the story that will hopefully payoff in ASM 3 since it's the finale of Webb's trilogy, that great scene between Pete and Aunt May when he's looking for the truth about his father, Gwen Stacy for the second movie in a row is not useless like MJ was in all 3 of the toby maguire movies. and we get the Gwen Stacy death scene from the comis on the big screen Yip I got absolutely no complaints about this movie. best one yet. 2. Amazing Spider-Man 1 I think it was a better origin than SM1, that simple. The Lizard was much better than Goblin for me, Gwen was useful, the action was better, the removal of the stupid relationship drama that plauged Raimi's movies by just having him admit to Gwen who he was and then being able to work together. This was just a really enjoyable movie. 3. Spider-Man 3 I dunno why I like this I just do, I guess it just annoys me less than teh first 2, I love that whole finale with Peter and Harry teaming up to fight Venom and Sandman. Pete also beating teh crap outta Harry twice after he was the biggest dick in the world in the first two movies was good tos ee as well. Only thing i hate about this movie is Mary Jane, she fucking sucks in this trilogy. 4. Spider-Man 2 Doctor octopus being controlled/influenced/watever by tentacles with minds of their own then he goes out redeeming himself...who is this guy and where is teh real doctor Octopus, the megalomaniac scientist who wants to rule the world and be worshipepd for his scientific mind, this dude aint Otto. Spidey's powers fluctating with his confidence/desire? i still dunno what the fuck was wrong with his powers in that movie but it was stupid. 5. Spider-Man Green Goblin looked awful and the beginning looking back at it is really boring when I compare it to ASM. It might be 5th but I still like it. So as you can no doubt tell I'm extremely looking forward to Amazing Spider-Man 3, I just hope it isn't actually a sinister six movie though. I want them to introduce the symbiot, have Spider-Man go dark and establish a relationship with Felicia Hardy/Black Cat who would be attracted to his darker and more ruthless persona, since she was brought in in ASM2, you have spidey fight 2 villains again, a big foe like Dock Ock/Kraven and a smaller one like Vulture/Mysterio to establish a bigger roster of villains for the actual sinister six movie. I wonder how they will handle the Venom and Sinister Six spin off movies, I cant see either working without Spider-Man being in them to defeat the villains at the end but then that would just make them ASM 4 and 5, both movies are suppsoed to be happening between ASM3 and ASM4 so who knows what wur gonna get.
|
|
|
Post by CJ on May 11, 2014 17:00:19 GMT -5
Mine is the same with the IGN list, but with the first Raimi movie at 4th, rather than 2nd. The second Raimi film will likely always be my favorite. It's the most solid of the films in plot and action (though imo Mary Jane was poorly handled in all the Raimi, with no real fault on Kristen Dunst). It hasn't aged well in effects but I still think it's great.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 16, 2014 21:49:49 GMT -5
lol it was a purdy meh movie.
An abundance of cringe-worthy decisions made it lower on the scale for me.
|
|
|
Post by Kyubey on Jun 8, 2014 1:13:37 GMT -5
Wait, why the shit did people not like this movie?
DISCLOSURE: I don't read comics so everything I say is probably wrong. Also, spoilers and crap.
I mean, yeeeeah I guess there were choices and scenes that weren't so great, but as an overall whole it was a fine movie. CJ, I think you really got it when you talked in your review about Spider-Man being relatable, and how that makes him a great superhero. Power coming at a price is something that all hero films must explore at some point, and it's handled beautifully well here, with Spider-Man being appropriately heroic, but still human, with all the faults, doubts, and mistakes that entails.
I also really liked the girlfriend character, Gwen played by Emma Stone. As it's been pointed out before, it's nice to see her archetype actually do things, but at the same time I think it goes deeper than that. In the end her character is still just a support for Spidey, someone to save, someone to humanize him, someone for him to cry over, but Stone's performance was worthy on it's own, and elevates the quality of the whole thing. Rather than being just another part of the hero fantasy, which is the fate of most of her counterparts from other superhero movies, it's clear that she's a person in her own right, with all the motivations, scenes, and a prominent place in the overarching world that entails. The relationship itself between Peter and Gwen was exceptionally well handled, though I wonder if that was more due to the strong acting from both of them than the writing. That Spidey was also willing to adjust his life for her, rather than the other way around, I also thought was huge, even if, of course, he ended up not being able to follow through with it.
One of the strongest points in the film, I gotta say, was the way the villains were handled, especially Electro. Out of all the varieties of villains, the sympathetic type is my absolute favorite, but I feel as though, a lot of the time, people don't really get what that means. A tragic, heartrending background or tons of crying scenes or moments of possible redemption or whatnot. That may make a tragic villain, maybe, but what makes a villain sympathetic aren't things that make the audience feel bad for them, they're the things that make the audience understand them. And just as a hero's sympathetic qualities make it easier for the viewer to like them, a villain's sympathetic nature doesn't make them less scary, on the contrary, I feel as though it makes them far more terrifying. It's one thing to just have a scary person do scary things. It's another to make people wonder whether or not they are the monster, and you can't do that with the standard "GRRR I'M A CRIMINAL" types. Take Harry Osborne for example. From the beginning, he's portrayed as a normal, if not a big angry, young adult, but quickly goes downhill right after finding out he's dying, and then hearing Peter's whole "Spider-Man gives hope" speech. Spider-Man gives hope to everyone, he saves everyone, and despite being a close friend, he won't save Harry. After all that, combined with pretty much everyone being a huge dick to him, is it really so surprising he didn't turn out to be an outstanding individual?
Electro, meanwhile, is clearly unwell, and very clearly not given the help he needs. And the Times Square scene (my favorite part of the movie, btw) really emphasizes that. When he finally goes through his full breakdown, the musical score features a lot of vocals that emphasize his mental state, basically repeating that those around him, Spider-Man in particular, have betrayed him and they're his enemy. This is not only a stylistic effect. Hearing disembodied voices repeating statements like that is a clear and obvious symptom of schizophrenia. I'm not an expert on psychology, so I won't go much further than that, but even without that I think the character still works. His actions are not excusable, but the circumstances that led him to being what he became are just as, if not more, horrific than what he did once he got his power. It's clear that the reason why Peter went out of his way to be nice to Max, both before and after the transformation, was because he saw a reflection of himself: an awkward, nerdy guy who was put down more often than he deserved.
And of course, the stories of both these villains would have been handled much better had they been given more time. Yes, nearly everything was rushed. And yes, it probably would have been better if Electro and Harry (the latter especially) didn't have to share a movie. It's that main issue that keeps this from being a great movie, but what can ya do, right?
Now then, time for the part that was bound to happen, the comparison to the Raimi films.
If I didn't say it before (and checking the thread for the last Amazing Spider-Man, I didn't) I will say it now: Tobey Maguire will always be a better Peter Parker, and Andrew Garfield will always be the best Spider-Man. I'm probably not the first to have this opinion, but the opinion is mine nonetheless. My apologies to Garfield, but I could never really see him as the dorky kid that I feel Peter's supposed to be. Not to diminish his performance, which I thought was excellent, but the old films win for me there. As for the supporting characters, Emma Stone's Gwen completely blows away Kirsten Dunst's Mary-Jane, which is kinda sad because I do like Dunst as an actor. Chalk it up to the writing for that one, I suppose.
The way that the original films hurt the new ones the hardest, I would say, is in the portrayal of Harry. Dane DeHaan gave a great and interesting take on him, that just happened to be overshadowed by the amazing performance by James Franco that came before. They're both really good interpretations of the character though, and while I haven't read the comics so I can't say which one is more accurate, to be completely honest, I don't care. They both do a good job and work well for what the respective series were trying to do. Yes, the Raimi films win out in that regard for the time they gave the character and the benefit of casting a (usually) great actor, but I did still like what little was given to us here.
As a whole, I still maintain that I like the new series better than the old, but the old does still have good things going for it. the Amazing Spider-Man movies did an excellent job at making themselves distinct, and updating the character for a modern audience, but mostly, I just feel as though Webb understands Spiderman in a way that Raimi never could. Although I would agree with CJ in that Spiderman 2 is overall the best movie starring Spidey to date, though it's been a while since I've seen it and it might not hold up. Still, I really liked Amazing Spider-Man 2, and I'm glad I was pressured into seeing it.
Best choice of the movie, by the way: not even trying to replace J.K Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. Good call, Webb. Good call.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on Jun 8, 2014 3:06:20 GMT -5
Wait, why the shit did people not like this movie? Because it wasn't really that good.
|
|