Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 7, 2012 I was waiting for someone else to start this but I guess I have to... Imo The Amazing Spider-Man was a good movie but there's nothing really Amazing about it. Andrew Garfield did a great job as Peter Parker and Emma stone was a great Gwen Stacey. Their chemistry completely trumps Maguire and Dunst. The only problem I had with the Parker - Stacey stuff was the kissing scenes. I felt like they were trying to push this whole romance angle that got kinda stupid. The first kiss was good but then came the next one then the next one and each of those kisses all seemed to try to top the upside down kiss from Spider-Man 1. It was as if Web just told Stone and Garfield "Never have a normal kiss, each time you kiss, it has to be THAT one special kiss" (wich made none of them "that one special kiss") Another con was the transition from Peter Parker to Spider-Man. I loved how they had him just where the mask at first while he was searching for his uncles killer but I hated how he got the costume. It all seemed a bit messy compared to the originals. I didn't really like the way he reacted in the train scene when he discovers his powers, he seemed way to calm and collected, I felt he should've acted way more cofused. The bathroom scene was nice but all I could think was X-Men Origins: Wolverine at that point. There seemed to be no learning curve it was just Peter Parker - Spiderbite - BOOM - Spider-Man He never really seemed to learn anything he just knew it all as soon as he got bitten. The way they handled Uncle Ben's death was good but they never really did anything with it after Connors became the lizard. At first Peter starts hunting down his Uncle's killer but then stops for no good reason, he just forgets all about his uncle. They started a whole lot of shit in the first half of the film and droped half of it in the second half. They promised to tell the Untold origin story of Spider-Man but they never really did. That is not cool. Tobey Vs Andrew Tobey was better at acting out the fighting scenes with the grunts, "woohoos", screams etc. and he is. Garfield was better at being Peter Parker when it came to acting and personality. Garfield just didn't do aswell as Tobey did when it came to acting out the Spider-Man shit. Like when he falls in Spider-Man 2 because he starts to lose his powers. Tobey's scream was epic. Basicly, If I needed someone to do voiceover work for Spider-Man and had to choose between Andrew and Tobey; I'd choose Tobey. However, If I was choosing between the two for a movie trilogy. Andrew is the guy. He just needs to improve his acting when it comes to action scenes. Kristin Dunst vs Emma Stone: Emma Stone. Need I explain why? No? I thought so. Lizard vs Goblin: (I'm reviewing the characters because it seems more appropriate) The Goblin was done really well in the originals. Everytime I saw Goblin I always thout "that guy is evil! " and never once thought "that's Norman Osborn", wich does alot for the split persona thing they were going for. Unfortunatly The Lizard character was going for the same thing and in my opinion, wasn't as well achieved. I felt the Lizard never really did anything to make him seem like a real villain. Wether that's good or bad is a point of view. Nor did I ever forget the Lizard was Connors. However, I felt the Lizard was the perfect choice to play Spider-Man's first villain and he felt like a first villain (weaker, easier to defeat) I would've enjoyed the inclusion of his wife and child but no harm in keeping them out. I enjoyed this movie but I would've preferred Spider-Man 4 followed by an Ultimate Spider-Man. This movie lacked GOOD action scenes, sexy CGI Spider-Man swinging, an awesome soundtrack, originality and good pace, gut it is still a fun Movie worth seeing. Is it better than the original? In some ways yes, like the drama, the drama is second to one (TDK:p), in other ways no. I won't compare The Amazing Spider-Man to Spider-Man 2 because Spider-Man 2 wins every time, but do to the fact that Spider-Man 2 wasn't burdened with origin stories; it's an unfair comparison. I will compare Spider-Man 2 and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 though. If they get a way better soundtrack, awesome fight scenes like the train fight scene from Spider-Man 2, better Spider-Man acting out of Garfield and a deeper villain; they should have no problem topping Spider-Man 2. Spider-Man 3 was/is shit. I give The Amazing Spider-Man 7.5/10 Good Movie but just that a good movie. What's your opinion on The Amazing Spider-Man? Do you agree or disagree with my opinions? Let me know why (as if I have to ask..) Sorry about the linebreaks. Technical difficulties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gtagrl 4317 Report post Posted July 7, 2012 Marvel, not Marval (in the tags.) I'll post more once I see the movie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crazee 204 Report post Posted July 7, 2012 How many more remakes are they going to make! The only reason to watch it is for Emma Stone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 Not cool. You took that from Uncle Ben's death scene. Shame on you. *shakes head whilst sucking teeth* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beatnicpie 825 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 I prefer "Spiderman" and "Spiderman 2" to "The Amazing Spiderman," but it sure as hell is better than campy ass "Spiderman 3." But, where "S 3" failed so incredibly, I found myself simply bored by "TAS," which, in my opinion, is the ultimate failure in cinema. I was bored as fuck the whole time. Not entertained. Not angered. Just bored. I agree with quite a few things that you pointed out, Ku Ku Ka Choo, but I thought Andrew Garfield was a terrible Peter Parker, but I blame that more on Marc Webb than Garfield himself. Garfield's Parker was way to hip, and didn't have the right sense of humor. And what the fuck was the purpose of putting him on a skateboard? And the whole skateboarding to figure out his powers montage made my eyes roll till I was dizzy. Then there was the fact that Peter's high school was a science school. Why? What purpose did that serve? And how the hell did Flash get into that school? Also, fuck Denis Leary. I loved "No Cure For Cancer" as a kid. But then I discovered Bill Hicks. Leary is another fake ass, joke theif, just like the now defunct Carlos Mencia. I'm gonna give the movie a 5/10. It's another middle of the road Hollywood film. It will fade into the background as time goes by. How many more remakes are they going to make! The only reason to watch it is for Emma Stone They won't stop. Watch this to learn more, star-trek-09. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 How many more remakes are they going to make! The only reason to watch it is for Emma Stone They need to make up for letting a shitty company get its hands on their IP. There's a Daredevil reboot in the works, and I imagine we'll get a Fantastic Four reboot at some point, too. Gotta make up for your fuck-ups. Comic book movies deserve better, and they're finally starting to do them right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 The only thing that makes current comic book movies better than older ones is the special effects. X-Men's special effects were ass but if it were made today like First Class the effects would look so much more believable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 No, comic movies are mostly shit, they've only recently started doing them properly. Batman Begins and Iron Man were the first ones that were done right, and I love The Dark Knight as much as anyone, but Watchmen is the best comic book movie made thus far. Respect the source material. Some of this shit (Wolverine, X-Men: First Class, etc.) is like the people making it have never touched a comic book in their lives. It's pathetic. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 X-Men 2000 Spider-Man = 2002 Fantastic Four = 2004? - X-Men 2 = 2002 Hulk = 2003 Spider-Man 2 = 2005 Siver Surfer = 2007 - Spider-Man 3 = 2007 Batman Begins = 2006 X-Men 3 = 2007 Iron Man = 2008 The Dark Knight = 2008 X-Men Origins: 2009 Iron Man 2 = 2010 WatchMen = 2010? X-Men First Class = 2011 You see how that doesn't really work? Recent has nothing to do with it, FOX DOES. KILL FOX Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 X-Men 2000 - Spider-Man = 2002 - Fantastic Four = 2004? - X-Men 2 = 2002 + Hulk = 2003 - Spider-Man 2 = 2005 + Siver Surfer = 2007 - Spider-Man 3 = 2007 - - - Batman Begins = 2006 + X-Men 3 = 2007 - Iron Man = 2008 + The Dark Knight = 2008 ++ X-Men Origins: 2009 - Iron Man 2 = 2010 + WatchMen = 2010? +++ X-Men First Class = 2011 - You see how that doesn't really work? Recent has nothing to do with it, FOX DOES. KILL FOX Fixed. Also, The Incredible Hulk - 2008 + Thor - 2011 + Captain America - 2011 + The Avengers - 2012 ++ There's a shit ton more to go on that list (The Losers, Kick-Ass, Hellboy, etc.), but this list covers the heavy hitters. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 I know, but I honestly didn't feel like they were needed to make my point. I get what you're saying, but the proof is in the shitty pudding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 Oh, I definitely agree on Fox fucking everything up. Fixed the list and forgot to mention that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mercy 30 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 Also not about Spiderman since I have never actually seen the movies all the way through. But The Avengers 2 is being made. That is my input here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 lul I want to see how Disney would handle Wolverine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 All the recent Marvel movies have a sequel in the works, except the Hulk. WHY NO HULK? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 My guess is that they assumed that everyone would hate Ruffalo so they didn't plan another Hulk film. Or they just don't know what to do with him. The cast from The Incredible Hulk is gone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Massacre 7646 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 I would imagine they would say something soon if there were going to be a sequel, since Ruffalo was pretty well received. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 I preferred the way Hulk looked in The Incredible Hulk better. Seemed more badass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 350 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 I thought it was an average movie. Good watch, but I wouldn't pay to go cinema for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cuda 939 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 All I know is Lou Ferrigno played The Hulk once. edit: that is all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 So did Peter Griffin. I'm about to give The Avengers another go. I want to see if it is as good as I remember. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jobo 100 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 Didn't I post here last night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beatnicpie 825 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 Massa and Ku, you guys liked the Watchmen? Why? That is one of the greatest disappointments I've seen, and I've watched it three times, praying I'd change my mind. It took Alan Moore's wonderful story and spit all over it, imo. I realize I am a real fucking snob when it comes to film, but that movie hurts me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ku Zi Mu 1194 Report post Posted July 8, 2012 I've never seen WatchMen, I just took Massecure's word. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
