[lpkmckenna]

I haven't seen it yet. But I will, because I have to judge it for myself.

But, here is a brutal review from Movie Bob at The Escapist. I'm kinda hit-n-miss with Bob; when I agree with him, I really really agree, and vise-versa.

He blames the need to retain publishing rights to Spider-Man as the cause of the whole mess, while at the same time admitting that didn't hurt X-Men: First Class. So, why dwell on a fact that's probably irrelevant? Sometimes a bad film is just a bad film.

He also blames the change in some character backgrounds (Peter's dad worked with Curt Conners at Oscorp, where Gwen Stacy works as an intern) with making the universe seem smaller. This seems like a really petty complaint.

I also doubt the new Spidey suit is the second worst suit in all filmdom (next the Halley Berry's Catwoman), because I've seen pics and it doesn't look that bad to me. It's different, but I'm ok with different.

So here's a review of a review of a film I haven't seen: you haven't convinced me not to see it, Bob.

[lpkmckenna]

BTW, if I hear anyone say "I hope it sucks and bombs so the rights revert to Marvel," that isn't gonna happen under any circumstances. It is impossible for Spider-Man to lose money, and even it one film bombed, the studio would suck it up and try again. No studio would ever release the rights to a franchise like Spidey.

SM3 sucked hard, and it still made a tonne of money.

[The Final Dakar]

Nothing against Spider-man, but not interested. Like the the films last decade.

[andi*pandi]

Too soon for a reboot. Seems unnecessary. Rather see Avengers again.

[knifecarrier2]

I don't get why the rebooted it. The Toby Maguire franchise was great. I really liked them... and they started in 2000, which was BARELY 10 years ago. Are they that out of ideas they have to redo movies that are only 10 years old?

Stupid.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

I don't get why the rebooted it

To retain the rights.

[mattyb]

Unless there's a "Kirsten Dunst wet t-shirt" type scene then I'm not interested.

And Toby Maguire is more wooden than Keanu. Terrible choice of actor.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Unless there's a "Kirsten Dunst wet t-shirt" type scene then I'm not interested.

Please, it's not the 80s. We no longer go to movies in the hopes for a hint of nipple. Plus, that shit gets capped and released on the internet soon after release.

I now have to kill drifters to get an erection

[lpkmckenna]

The reason the reboot was necessary was: Raimi left the franchise in a sh!thole with SM3. There was no way any director would want to carry on with the tatters that Raimi left behind. And besides, when the entire cast walks away, there's no good reason to keep the same story going. Better to start from scratch.

There is also an opportunity here to reinvent characters that were poorly done in the Raimi films: Goblin (terrible costume and motivations, though well-acted by Dafoe), a good Peter/Gwen/MJ love triangle in the sequel instead of the crap in SM3, Peter as an actual boy-genius that's relevant to the character and story, and this time perhaps making Venom and Harry Osborne and Curt Connors and Sandman as good quality villains. The biggest shame of the Raimi films is how terrible the villains are. A reboot is necessary to salvage the potential that Spidey's enemies actually have.

And I'm pretty tired of people complaining that the studio forced Raimi to include Venom, and that ruined the movie. Wrong, everything that Raimi wanted to do, like make Sandman a sympathetic villain in the lamest way possible while also retconning the death of Uncle Ben, the stupid amnesia subplot with Harry (switching from villain to friend to villain to friend), to the stupid emo-dancing, to a pointlessly stupid collapse of Peter and MJ's relationship, that was all Raimi's fault. At the end of SM2, everything was set up for an amazing third act, and Raimi ruined it completely on his own.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Unless there's a "Kirsten Dunst wet t-shirt" type scene then I'm not interested.

Those nipple scenes are really stupid in a kid-oriented franchise like Spiderman.

And Toby Maguire is more wooden than Keanu. Terrible choice of actor.

I thought Maguire was fine, but Garfield looks much better. I hope they don't screw this up.

[Stogieman]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And Toby Maguire is more wooden than Keanu. Terrible choice of actor.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

Those nipple scenes are really stupid in a kid-oriented franchise like Spiderman.

Not as stupid as giving the bat suit nipples.

[besson3c]

SM2 is one of my favorite superhero movies of all time. I hope the franchise can be restored to this level.

[mattyb]

And after posting that, what happens to be on TV tonight? Spiderman 2

And there was Dunst in the final showdown. Wet. Tied up. Hard nipples.

[lpkmckenna]

I just saw The Amazing Spider-Man. It is definitely the best Spidey film yet.

It does suffer from the same issue that most comic book films have, including the Raimi SM films, in that the villain's motivation can be summed up with one word: crazy. Also, the last act is somewhat crammed together, with the "necessary" events kinda shoehorned in. You can almost feel the editor's razor mercilessly cutting away scenes and dialog that might have helped explain things a bit better, but would have made the film drag.

But I want to deal with some of the things Movie Bob said about this film, so I'll just get started:

1) "Soulless corporate film." Uh, no, I don't think it felt soulless at all. in fact, this movie's big heart is the major reason I like it. It is extremely earnest and even moving. While all the monologues and blubbering in Raimi's films just got on my nerves, all the functionally-similar scenes in this film feel authentic and natural. Peter and Gwen actually seem to be awkward teenagers, without all the "too clever" dialogue spilling out of them. And even though Peter broods a bit about his parents, it never feels "emo" like some people have been saying. He reacts exactly the way a teenager who was abandoned as a child would behave.

2) "No ambition." On the contrary, this film is quite ambitious:

1. The physical action is some of the best in a comic book film, ever. Spidey and the Lizard use, react to, and impact the environment in surprising ways. You know how some video games have destructible environments, but most are physically-impossible diamond worlds? This film feels like two super beings are ripping their surroundings apart while they try to kill each other.
2. A trilogy-spanning mystery. Not all questions are answered. I think this is a very ambitious idea for a comic-book film. I hope they build on it in the sequels by adding the other big mystery of the Spidey-verse: who is Hobgoblin? It's time to keep the audience in the dark a bit.
3. Peter is mortal. He can really be hurt. Unlike the Raimi films, Spidey can't fall twenty stories and walk away with a slight, quickly-forgotten backache. For instance, in this film, Peter grazes a bus and then walks around with a slowly-healing welt on his face for half the film. The kind of "damage, injury, and blood-splatter" tracking that we expect from a horror film is meticulously tracked in this film, and relevant to the dialogue and story. Film continuity is hard, and I'm happily surprised to see it in this film. It makes Peter seem more human, and we and the other characters worry about him more.

3) "Peter is a complete cypher." Wrong again. I think this Peter is the most relatable character in a comic film we've ever seen. When Uncle Ben unloads with some folky wisdom about something Peter's Dad once said, Peter lashes back in a surprising but completely understandable way; I totally got where he was coming from. On top of that, this film seems to deconstruct some of the folksy nonsense that Raimi's film expected us to swallow whole.

4) "Twilight-inspired romantic angst." This is just fncking stupid. Like I said, Peter and Gwen are the most natural teenagers imaginable. There's nothing "angst-y" about it. And frankly, I'm fncking tired of hearing every single teenage romance being compared to Twilight.

5) "Peter is an emo, a skater, a hipster, a Michael Cera impression." Ok, now that we know what Bob doesn't like in the real world, perhaps we can discuss the actual film, because none of these complaints are remotely relevant to this film at all.

6) "Uncle Ben's death is gutted of meaning." Uh, what? It's exactly the same in every respect that matters: Peter lets a bad guy get away, bad guy kills Uncle Ben, Peter learns a lesson about responsibility.

7) "Subplot about Peter's parents is a rip-off from Batman Begins." No, it's not the same at all. Bruce sees his parents die right in front of him. Peter's parents disappear; we don't even know if they're dead! Peter is angry at his dad, Bruce idolizes his dad. There is no rip-off, Movie Bob is being an idiot to compare these films in any way.

8) "Connors is a reptilian fascist who wants to conquer the world." Did Movie Bob actually watch this film? Anyone who sees this film knows that is rubbish. Connors goes crazy, just like Goblin and Doc Ock in the Raimi films. There's nothing else.

9) "The CGI looks terrible." No, it doesn't, it looks fine. Some people might not like the design of the Lizard, but he's animated very, very well. He certainly looks way better than the Green Goblin from Raimi's film, the laziest villain design in the history of film.

10) "Web-shooter muzzle flare." Didn't see it, and even if it was true, this is the stupidest complaint about a film ever.

11) "The stupid moment." There's a strange moment in the film when the crane operators of the city help Spidey by moving their cranes. It doesn't make complete sense. I first thought it did, because it looked like only one of Spidey's web-shooters was working, but that only raised the question: how did the crane operators know that? But then, we quickly see that both are working, and what possible help were the crane operators anyway? I have to agree that this moment in the film was dumb, but it's nowhere near as stupid as "drowning a nuclear reaction in the river," or emo-dancing Peter, or amnesia-painter Harry, or a half-dozen other moments in the Raimi films.

12) "No respect for the material, no respect for the audience." I just disagree, no further comment.

That's enough about Bob's bullish!t.

[Shaddim]

I liked it. It's better than the Toby SM. The only real fault I have is with the hokey crane scene, but otherwise it was very solid.

[P]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

The reason the reboot was necessary was: Raimi left the franchise in a sh!thole with SM3. There was no way any director would want to carry on with the tatters that Raimi left behind. And besides, when the entire cast walks away, there's no good reason to keep the same story going. Better to start from scratch.

I don't buy that. They could just as easily have said that this was the ending of a single trilogy, Spidey is now an established hero and can go on to fight other villains. Their problem was that Raimi didn't want to make another and Maguire didn't want to make another, and that basically pushed Dunst out of it as well. They would have to recast the entire thing, and at that point someone got the brilliant idea to reboot, because that's what all the cool kids are doing these days.

There is also an opportunity here to reinvent characters that were poorly done in the Raimi films: Goblin (terrible costume and motivations, though well-acted by Dafoe), a good Peter/Gwen/MJ love triangle in the sequel instead of the crap in SM3, Peter as an actual boy-genius that's relevant to the character and story, and this time perhaps making Venom and Harry Osborne and Curt Connors and Sandman as good quality villains. The biggest shame of the Raimi films is how terrible the villains are. A reboot is necessary to salvage the potential that Spidey's enemies actually have.

Couldn't disagree more. Reboots mean that we have to have the coming-of-age aspect every single time, have to introduce the character every single time, have to reinvent the backstory every single time. If they had just skipped the reboot aspect, they could have focused on some of the other villains. The first trilogy used up 3 (Venom could return), it's not like they were running out.

And I'm pretty tired of people complaining that the studio forced Raimi to include Venom, and that ruined the movie. Wrong, everything that Raimi wanted to do, like make Sandman a sympathetic villain in the lamest way possible while also retconning the death of Uncle Ben, the stupid amnesia subplot with Harry (switching from villain to friend to villain to friend), to the stupid emo-dancing, to a pointlessly stupid collapse of Peter and MJ's relationship, that was all Raimi's fault. At the end of SM2, everything was set up for an amazing third act, and Raimi ruined it completely on his own.

Raimi ruined it for the simple reason that as the director, the buck stops there. He had stories for at least two movies squeezed in to one, and his problem was that the Venom plot would have been enough in itself and it was the one everyone but him wanted. If he had "cut that favorite scene", as you're supposed to, and left the Sandman angle out of it, it could have been an enjoyable movie. If he instead had defied pressure and removed Venom, it would have been a much more boring movie with a straight fight against a bad guy, but it would have worked. What happened here was that he was pushed to include Venom, really wanted Sandman, and saw the opportunity for the 2 on 2 showdown at the end that he pushed everything in, and that just didn't work.

[Salty]

Saw it the other day and I have to say it had some parts that were brilliant and other parts that really took you out of the movie.

Obviously the crane part is what everyone is going to remember hating about this movie. It took the great scene on the bridge with the kid and made it just a lame ass setup for the dumbest aspect of any super hero movie since Batman's nipples.

I also have to say that the Lizard's motivations really were simply, "Hey guys I'm bat shit crazy!" If they'd have done some inner dialogue or something like that it would have made a lot more sense. Also were the air borne lizard spray ever part of the comic universe? It seemed a really lame assed approach. Frankly the whole super hero aspect of the movie was really the weak part. The opening bits where he's playing hide and seek and then loses his parents was an awesome idea. All of the scenes with Gwen were great. The subway + bathroom bit was over extended, we get it powers are awkward, moving on.

At the same time there were several bits that made the film seem downright artistic. Most of the dialogue was great, except for small bits where I'm guessing somebody high up who didn't know what they were doing changed the lines.