467 replies to this topic

[Quint]

Ha ha ha, just noticed what I said there!

I'll leave it for posterity

[Miles Prower]

I preferred it over Raimi's films which I never liked. I thought it was too long but it was never boring.

the effects were really good this time around. Wish I saw it in 3d

Sigh, another overly long popcorn flick. Someone should revive the old hour fifty runtime.

I was just telling a friend about this - cut a half-hour's worth of bad comedy and military hard-ons out of each Bayformers movie, and each one becomes infinitely better.

[Joey]

What do you think of James Horner's latest, Joey?

Karol

It's a purchase for me. It's very good, perhaps the best score this year or at least the score I've enjoyed the most.

I'll say again for me this Spiderman film was superior in most everyway over the Raimi films which we mostly awful and the last dreadful. Andrew Garfield is a much better Peter Parker and Spiderman.

One thing I am so glad this film didn't do. It didn't place Peter and his Aunt and Uncle in abject poverty like in the first 3 movies.

Again the effects as so much better. The filmmakers took a completely different approach to make them look less like animated/cartoonish effects. Those in the first film are unbelievable and awful. 0's and 1's.

[E.T. & Elliott]

Okay, so the next Spider-Man reboot needs to not show the origin of Spider-Man. Just join his adventures at some point when he's already around kicking ass. Like Batman 1989. Not all these superhero flicks need to show how they got radioactive powers and turned buff. Only Superman: The Movie had a good origin.

[Joey]

The Man of Steel is part origin story.

[Wojo]

Okay, so the next Spider-Man reboot needs to not show the origin of Spider-Man. Just join his adventures at some point when he's already around kicking ass. Like Batman 1989. Not all these superhero flicks need to show how they got radioactive powers and turned buff. Only Superman: The Movie had a good origin.

[OPINION]
Maybe, but recall that this rebooted Spider-Man franchise wanted to do things different from the Raimi/Maguire series. They wanted to make his spinnerets artificial as opposed to natural, introduce his father as a plot point, and have him pine over Gwen instead of Mary Jane. The only way to do that and undeniably tell the audience that this wasn't Spider-Man 4 was to make a new origin story.

Batman (1989) showed enough origin story as flashbacks scattered throughout the main story that it was not required to make the origin story the prologue or the first so many acts, as was done with Batman Begins. Plus, since Batman (1989) couldn't begin with a straight-up origin story without giving away their idea that Jack Napier's gang killed Bruce's parents and directly led to the creation of Batman in the first twenty minutes of the movie, defanging the plot. The remaining three Batman films continued this trend of showing snippets of flashback to spread the origin story around.
[/OPINION]

[gkgyver]

I just saw the film.
I like it a lot, I thought it was actually terrific.
However, in a few places, I felt like they intentionally wanted to avoid the similarity to Raimi's first movie, which is understandable, but still silly because after all, it is the same character with the same origin story.
I missed the wrestling bit, but it's probably a good thing they didn't include it. Nothing could top the Macho Man
The way Uncle Ben dies and the consequences for Peter are done very well.

Also, I dearly missed J.J. Jameson. But I realise there was probably little time for that.

I thoroughly enjoyed the acting, Andrew Garfield is very good as Peter Parker. Tobey Maguire (a nice touch that the "Seabiscuit" novel is lying around in Gwen's room) was probably a little closer as far as the look is concerned, but the elements of the character are there, and transported into the 21st century perfectly.
I also like his body language in the Spidey suit. Very quirky and closer to the comic book than Maguire's style.

Overall, it's pretty damn good to see the origin story being adapted a bit more faithfully, and I'm especially thrilled they chose Gwen over MJ (even though I expected her to pop in, and if just for one brief scene).
I was always bothered by the inexplicable fact that Raimi simply ignored Gwen and the impact she, and her death, had on Peter.
I can only hope there will be one or two sequels where the Gwen/MJ story is told properly.

Spoiler

I honestly can't remember whether Captain Stacey died in the comic book or not. I have to check that, but his death in the end seemed fitting, and if only because his knowledge of Peter's double identity would have been too much of a burden for further stories.

The inclusion of Curtis Connors is adequate, even though the actor in Raimi's films was a better fit for me. The CGI on the Lizard, well, let me put it this way, it was as realistic as a genetically created, 10 ft tall talking lizard will ever be.

I found the whole movie really great, but still, there is this one moment ... You know, I go to a Spider-Man film, and I willfully abandon basic principles of physics, human behaviour and biology. But the coincidence, that the guy whose son Spidey saved happens to watch TV at work, and is able to convince his peeps to position their cranes, that just happen to be in perfect position for Spidey to use for swinging to Oscorp Tower - that is too much to take.

Horner's score is fantastic, but there is one moment, the first scene of Peter in his full costume, that Horner made look very corny with his fake choir. And that first hero shot is something you just don't mess up in a superhero film.

And while I like what Horner did, let me tell you, Jesus Christ, when I think what Elfman could have done in this film, I might as well orgasm.
No offense to Horner, but Elfman does electronics better, and his quirky, energetic style would have fitted this film perfectly.
And I doubt he would do a sequel.

Did anyone else catch the additional scene after the principal end credits?

Spoiler

Who do you think Connors was talking to? Norman Osbourne? The way he seems to dissapear so quickly makes me think Mysterio, but that would be a strange choice.

[ComposerEthan]

Spoiler

I actually do think it's Mysterio at the end credits, but why would an out-of-work Special effects/stunt man be doing involved with OsCorp? Kingpin perhaps?

[Koray Savas]

Please indicate spoilers when necessary.

[Jason LeBlanc]

Koray is absolutely right, you guys should have known better. I've gone and added spoiler tags to your posts.


Anyone else have any opinions on the movie? Trying to decide if I should see it in the theater or just wait and watch it at home like I do with most movies these days.

[Pasi Tiitinen]

I don't go movies any more, only in very special occasions, definitely not for these endless reboots. Maybe I will see The Hobbit in the theater though.

[E.T. & Elliott]

Are the action and fights in this one cool? In the other ones, it was always too animated and fake. It never looked like it could really be the same guy, the CGI was totally obvious and jarring. There were only rare moments when Spidey look awesome and it was usually the simplest thing, like MJ watching him swing away after he saves her the first time or crawling on the train during the fight in the second one.

[Miles Prower]

I kinda prefer Raimi's approach to web-slinging. The Evil Dead craziness worked well for those movies, gave them a unique style.

Anyhoo, this is interesting: http://badassdigest....ing-spider-man/

I predict a Superman Returns situation; we're not going to see any huge deleted scenes until this movie (or one of its sequels) underperforms.

[Matt C]

Are the action and fights in this one cool? In the other ones, it was always too animated and fake. It never looked like it could really be the same guy, the CGI was totally obvious and jarring.

They are cool, and better animated than the first three films. (I think the final swing is so much better than Raimi's first film, even if it is overdone.) But I attribute that to technological advances in the past 10 years, since Sony Pictures Imageworks will never be on par with ILM or Weta Digital in terms of quality.

But the film... it has good things working for it, but the script brings it down a lot. Especially the contrived second half... I agree with you, this reboot should've taken the Batman '89 approach. As much as I like Andrew Garfield (he does bring some qualities to the character that Maguire lacked), you didn't get much of a personality change pre- and post-spiderbite with his Peter Parker. Nor at the end of the movie either.

And Horner's score felt grossly out-of-place. It's not that he regurgitated Titanic, Wrath of Khan, Rocketeer and House of Sand and Fog for the umpteenth time -- his score just doesn't fit the contemporary vibe of the film. As much as I applaud Marc Webb championing and convincing Horner to score the film, the score belongs in an older, different film altogether. It really does.

[Stefancos]

Like Joey I vastly prefer this film to the Raimi ones. And Horners score sounded great.

[Quint]

Still haven't heard a note of Horner's music. I'll save it for the movie, where it stands its best chance to impress me.

[publicist]

And Horner's score felt grossly out-of-place. It's not that he regurgitated Titanic, Wrath of Khan, Rocketeer and House of Sand and Fog for the umpteenth time -- his score just doesn't fit the contemporary vibe of the film.

'Contemporary vibe'? If anything, it had too much contemporary vibe in it...needless bubbling samples and obnoxious drumloops. Thank god Horner was able to contribute some of his customary touches of thematic warmth, something most of the scores for these movies lack...in large doses.

[Jason LeBlanc]

Saw the film a while ago and for some reason never posted my thoughts, so here they are

Cliff Notes: Fun, but completely forgettable


You won't be bored in this film, it moves along at a steady pace and has plenty of action, comedy, drama, and some good individual scenes. But in the end, for me anyway, there wasn't much substance to it - it's juts another fun summer popcorn movie and nothing more.

I didn't care for the acting of anybody involved save for Emma Stone as Gwen Stacey - she was not only extremely pretty in the film, but the way she played her character was somehow intoxicating, for lack of a better word. If I was a 17 year old Peter Parker, I'd be in love with her too. Denis Leary was fine as her dad but was under-used, as was just about everybody else in the cast. James Garfield as Peter Parker was OK - vastly different from Tobey Maguire's portrayal, but I don't know if I can say better. They are each different.

A major problem I had with the film was just how much of it was a rehash from the prior 3 movies. I mean, there was A LOT. Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically engineered spider while in a science lab that the the love interest is also at. The villain is a scientist who under pressure has to resort to trying his experiment on himself. Peter's uncle dies because he lets a robber get away since he was mad at the cashier. Etc, its all the same!

The special effects ranged from passable to awful looking with the occasional cool effect. Sometimes it seemed like they were doing things more practically than the other films then other times it was like every single thing on the screen was CGI for too long of a period of time.

Another big problem I had was the "arc" of Peter's character and how Garfield portrays him. The problem on the script level is that Peter starts off as a nerd who is unliked at school and pushed around and bullied, then gets bitter and literally is just IMMEDIATELY Spider-man. There's no learning curve, no trying things out, no failing at his first attempts, no almost getting discovered. He just gets bitten and then is immediately able to do kung fu and whatever else, and quickly builds a costume and then is immediately a perfect crime stopper and building-swinger and immediately understands the responsibilities of his powers and everything that comes with it. The problem with the acting is that Garfield plays the nerdy naive Peter just about the same way he plays Spider-man.

Despite all these criticisms I had fun and wasn't bored. It just could have been more.

[Wojo]

The only part of the movie that I enjoyed was the "small knives" bit with the car thief...the same clip they showed online before the movie aired.

Denis Leary's character would have been improved had he simply said "You know what, Peter Parker (or Spider-Man), you really are an asshole," and then resumed singing his classic song.

Part of me will always view Raimi's first two as classics, and this one just didn't do it for me. (Nodding off every five minutes in the car as it was the second movie at the drive-in after a longass day may have something to do with it.)

[Ren]

I'm thinking maybe I will see this Sunday

[Koray Savas]

Jay, the whole scene with him on the skateboard in the abandoned warehouse was the learning curve scene. Not to mention him breaking a bunch of stuff because he wasn't used to how strong he became. The change in his body was more or less immediate, but it definitely took him awhile to adjust.

Sony is fast tracking the sequel for a 2014 release. Webb has to fulfill another picture with Fox Searchlight, but I believe they'll let him do the sequel if he agrees to direct another one with them. Could be good, but then Orci and Kurtzman are writing the script. Epic fail.

[Jason LeBlanc]

Just because they wrote Transformers doesn't mean they are bad writers. They created Fringe and wrote the Star Trek reboot after all

[Koray Savas]

Creating something and writing something are different, although I wouldn't doubt that they wrote a few episodes. Like we've discussed before I wasn't sold on Fringe from the the little bits I saw. It's on Amazon Prime now though so I may attempt it from the beginning.

As for Trek, it was fine I suppose, but these two are not great writers.

[Stefancos]

Star Trek (2009) is hardly an example of great writing!

You do know it's a very clichéd, unoriginal script, right?

[KK.]

Part of me will always view Raimi's first two as classics, and this one just didn't do it for me. (Nodding off every five minutes in the car as it was the second movie at the drive-in after a longass day may have something to do with it.)

Glad to see I'm not the only fan of Raimi's first 2 Spidey films here.

[Miles Prower]

I like all 3! The third film has a lot of good aspects that most choose not to see.

It's interesting how the superhero movie I liked least this summer (though I still enjoyed it) had the best score.

[Score_Fan]

Yeah, I also enjoy SM3. It's easily the worst of the trilogy, but it's not a bad movie. Also, it gave venom a better motivation than in the comics, so bonus.

[Stefancos]

Love how the meteorite landed just a short distance away from were Peter happened to be at that moment.