This was one of the only 3D movies I've been able to get away with not wearing the glasses and not have the screen be 'blurry'. At first I wondered if we were even playing the 3D version of the thing. Most everything feels 2D except for the action sequences. The only impressive 3D is a swinging sequence when Spiderman is approaching the climax. I'd say go for the 2D version if you can.
this is exactly what I expected the movie to be like, despite people trying to convince themselves so hard that it would shit on Raimie's movies. I think people underestimate how well he did on those first 2. But despite it all I'm sure people will still find it enjoyable.
Convince themselves? As if there weren't many reviews (even early on), not to mention gaffer impressions, saying it's the best SM out of the lot.
I think it'll end up being a matter of how much you can handle an origin (better or not, still the same) again.
But as i've said before, more people need to go back and watch the old movies for comparative's sake before anything. None of them were marvels of film by any means, but they were one of the first of their kind and unarguably sparked something across the comic book movie spectrum. Classics no doubt, but slightly overrated (esp. 2) in this age for sure.. PS. I've seen them all a dozen+ times.
this is exactly what I expected the movie to be like, despite people trying to convince themselves so hard that it would shit on Raimie's movies. I think people underestimate how well he did on those first 2. But despite it all I'm sure people will still find it enjoyable.
Convince themselves? As if there weren't many reviews (even early on), not to mention gaffer impressions, saying it's the best SM out of the lot.
I think it'll end up being a matter of how much you can handle an origin (better or not, still the same) again.
But as i've said before, more people need to go back and watch the old movies for comparative's sake before anything. None of them were marvels of film by any means, but they were one of the first of their kind and unarguably sparked something across the comic book movie spectrum. Classics no doubt, but slightly overrated (esp. 2) in this age for sure.. PS. I've seen them all a dozen+ times.
I disagree that any are overrated upon re-watching. Not the same impact as seeing them the first time but there are so many great things handled well. And there were like 20 pages of people shitting on Raimie's films and talking about how this one is gonna nail spiderman. When in reality, it looks like they didn't nail the character at all, lol, at least not the important parts. I'm sure people will forgive it though, because they already decided to.
TBH, my main concern was Garfield, never thought he fit, but I'll admit to being mostly wrong on that. But the rest...yeah.
I disagree that any are overrated upon re-watching. Not the same impact as seeing them the first time but there are so many great things handled well. And there were like 20 pages of people shitting on Raimie's films and talking about how this one is gonna nail spiderman. When in reality, it looks like they didn't nail the character at all, lol, at least not the important parts. I'm sure people will forgive it though, because they already decided to.
TBH, my main concern was Garfield, never thought he fit, but I'll admit to being mostly wrong on that. But the rest...yeah.
Don't worry that scene doesn't last too long, but the scene where he's skateboarding, while eating a pizza, and listening to Sum 41? That last an eternity.
The Rotten Tomatoes score is interesting. 78% with 101 critics having weighed in. But the Top Critics score is at 100% with 13 reviews.
For comparison's sake, Batman Begins, which is probably the closest comparison I can think of, ended up with a RT score of 85%, but with a 65% score in the Top Critics section of 17 Top Critics reviews.
I imagine TAS will end up with a similar total score by the end, a higher Top Critics score, and a much higher box office take.
I cant wait to see this myself. I watched and read some positive things over the weekend and got myself pretty excited but now Im listening to a podcast and the guy who saw it just sounds so down on it. Pretty dissapointing.
I need to stop and just wait to form my own opinion.
TIH: Both sucked
IM 2: Kinda sucked. There were some entertaining elements
Thor: Entertaining, but ultimately...well sucked
Captain America: Sucked. Great re-imagining of the suit though.
I would rate this Spider-man a notch below Iron Man 2.
If that happens again, you need to complain to management and ask for compensation. Brightness is not an issue at the AMC I frequent, but I had to endure a dark projection of Avengers 3D at a nearby Harkens and won't be going back there any time soon.
Ive never had a brightness issue in any 3D film Ive seen. Its a shame that some theaters are giving this perception that 3D has to equal dark and muddy when its so far from the truth.
Prometheus looked beautiful when I saw it in 3D digital Imax. Pristine clear picture and bright as it should be. No issue in dark scenes.
Was planning on seeing this in 3D, but unfortunately I'm going with friends tomorrow and the majority of them hate 3D. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. If the movies good, I might go and see it again on my own in 3D.
I liked it. In fact, I liked it more, than the Raimi trilogy (Haven't seen 2 for some time).
Garfield and Stone leave a better impression than Maguire and Dunst. Better chemistry, better dialog, far more likeable.
Conners is a so-so bad guy. As Conners, he is well written and acted, as the Lizard, only the action sequences stand strong.
The plot is similar. Most of the time, it gets done what has to be done to advance the story and is well executed - but you get plot holes often enough and it could move a bit faster. Action Sequences are mostly great and well shot. No shaky cam in sight!
The origin stuff was well executed, even if I would have preferred the way, The Incredible Hulk got things moving: Use the opening credits as a visual reminder of who Spiderman is and where he is right now and move along from there. But I guess, the first full-costume-swinging-through-Manhattan Stuff has to be build up.
I would rate it 6-7/10 - It's entertaining, but has its weaknesses.
Oh and don't bother with the 3D - Its simply not worth it.
As far as recent Origin Stories go, I would rate it in the middle of things.
Worse than Begins and Iron Man, better than Cap and equal to Thor.
Edit: What the heck at the budget? I thought, Sony wanted to make the reboot less expensive? Wasn't about 80-100m their aim? And now, imdb says about 215m?
I liked it, but it is definitely flawed. The film feels tonally all over the place between wanting to be realistic and then going into super camp mode.
The first third of the film is flat out mediocre. Everything that happens in the first act could have been done in half the time or less - especially because none of what happens is interesting in the slightest. There are a few nice/funny moments sprinkled about, but the opening act is going through the motions central. Luckily, the film dramatically improves after that.
Martin Sheen is an excellent Uncle Ben. Sally Field is a godawful Aunt May. In fact, those two are a good example of what I mean when I say the film constantly bounces between the no bullshit approach to this world and the cartoony. Aunt May is super cartoony, while Uncle Ben acts like a real uncle might if their nephew was acting like a selfish little cunt.
That brings me to what I may as well get out of the way - my biggest problem with the film. Spiderman is a cunt. The movie tries to get you to empathize with his situation of losing his parents and how depressed/aggravated he is, that it loses focus on the fact that we're suppose to respect him. I don't respect Peter in this movie, because he acts like a little twat and never becomes a man in the film. I know many will groan at me bringing up the Raimi films, but remember how Peter moved out of his Aunt's place and would struggle for jobs just to keep his head above water, whilst desperately trying to do the right thing by everybody else? It wasn't because Peter is a perfect saint - it's because at that point in his life, Peter is really learning what responsibility means. He's becoming a man. A SPIDER-MAN! I won't spoil why Garfield's Peter doesn't come across this way, but I'll just say that the 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility' is totally lost in this film. There is definitely a weight on Garfield's Parker in this film, but it isn't responsibility.
The action was really good most of the time. I liked that in quite a few scenes, the action never seemed staged. It was very matter of fact 'this is happening in front of me' and that Spider-Man moved like a motherfuckin' spider. Really great stuff.
Emma Stone was great and Gwen overall was really well done. I really liked her role in the story for the most part. She's easily the most likable character in the whole film.
Dr. Connors is yet another example of the mishmash that is this film. First act he's completely normal and awesome. Once he turns into the lizard he makes the Green Goblin seem subtle in terms of the dialogue he delivers. His character takes a completely ridiculous 180 and overall is just a horrible, horrible fucking villain outside of the physical monster film baddie that he's become.
The film has a lot of instances that feel like they've studied the first film and substituted scenes and characters for others in a super-lazy way.
Connors talking to himself like Willem Dafoe? C'mon Doc!
In fact, at the start of the film I immediately thought they were riffing Batman Begins.
Garfield himself was very decent. There are a couple of good Spidy zingers, but there are just as many that fall flat.
And that's probably the best way to sum up the film. Webb absolutely nails the little moments and interactions, but there is never one fist-pumping moment in the whole thing. All the big moments fall flat and feel somewhat forced.
Horner's score was an unmemorable and bland to say the least. Completely phoned in.
This review being all over the place is a pretty good representation of the film.
Overall I enjoyed it. It's definitely worth seeing at the movies. It's leagues better than Raimi's awful Spider-Man 3, but doesn't come close to Raimi's first two films. I no longer feel cynical about Sony rebooting the film so early, yet at the same time wish that it hadn't been an origin story again as I feel a lot of what worked in this film was held back by clumsy handling of that baggage we've already seen unpacked.
Yeah that was a particularly lame scene. It also highlighted that Spider-Man gets tonnes of help in this movie. It never really feels like he's in this thing alone for better or worse.
Yeah that was a particularly lame scene. It also highlighted that Spider-Man gets tonnes of help in this movie. It never really feels like he's in this thing alone for better or worse.
which i found great. he is just a kid (played by a nearly 30 year old, but thats another story) after all and still new to the superhero stuff. sure, the scene was full of cheese but it wasnt as bad as the scene in spider-man 1 with the new yorkers on the bridge.
This was one of the only 3D movies I've been able to get away with not wearing the glasses and not have the screen be 'blurry'. At first I wondered if we were even playing the 3D version of the thing. Most everything feels 2D except for the action sequences. The only impressive 3D is a swinging sequence when Spiderman is approaching the climax. I'd say go for the 2D version if you can.
Just because you can watch a movie without the glasses on doesn't mean it's flat. Conversely, just because an image is blurry doesn't mean there's plenty of depth. Most of the well-done 3D films are all watchable without glasses on. It takes a knowledge of the postproduction 3D process to understand why the main subject in a 3D shot tends to be sharp and clear. It's known as convergence, the process of adjusting the focus in a 3D shot. What this controls is the point on the depth axis where the scene is floating. When an object is doubled (screen parallax), it will float off-screen. If the object is sharp, it will float at or very near the surface of the screen. Hollywood films tend to keep the primary subjects at the screen surface, that way the eyes don't have to refocus from cut to cut. The difference between a decent dialog shot and a great one is in the amount of depth the subject's body has. And that's not something you can detect with your glasses off.
I had the same experience with Avatar. It totally killed any interest I have to watch anything in 3D ever again. Watching Avatar on Blu-Ray was like seeing the movie for the first time. The difference in picture quality and richness of quality between 2D and 3D is astounding
I had the same experience with Avatar. It totally killed any interest I have to watch anything in 3D ever again. Watching Avatar on Blu-Ray was like seeing the movie for the first time. The difference in picture quality and richness of quality between 2D and 3D is astounding
Ive never had a brightness issue in any 3D film Ive seen. Its a shame that some theaters are giving this perception that 3D has to equal dark and muddy when its so far from the truth.
Prometheus looked beautiful when I saw it in 3D digital Imax. Pristine clear picture and bright as it should be. No issue in dark scenes.
That line word for word is not in the movie, but Uncle Ben does in fact give Peter the talk about power and responsibility, just in a more roundabout way. Don't worry, the essence is in there
Saw it. Enjoyed it. Liked it more than the last three. They reimagined Peter Parker a bit so he's less nerdy right from the start. If this prevents us from having another Toby MacGuire, where he's nerdy enough to play Peter Parker and far too nerdy to play Spider-Man, I'm all for it.
They changed it to something like "If you can do good things, you have a responsibility to do those things" or whatever. Except more natural sounding that that and less awkward. I forget the exact wording. I always thought some old dude telling his nerdy nephew about how to use "great power" was kind of weird anyway.
In my opinion, it isn't. There's relative few scenes that use it (though the effect is pretty great where they do). It's not worth the vibrancy you'll sacrifice.
Was there a scene during/after the credits? I assumed there wouldn't be so I left but it kinda sounded like there was when I was standing in the lobby.
Was there a scene during/after the credits? I assumed there wouldn't be so I left but it kinda sounded like there was when I was standing in the lobby.
Yes (During the credits, not at the end, for those that are going to see it)
*spoilers*
They show Connors in a prison cell. Out of the shadows comes a man (presumably Norman Osborn) asking Connors if he told Peter what really happened to his parents. Connors says no. He then pleads with Osborn to not hurt the boy. Osborn leaves, cut to rest of the credits.
I liked it, but it is definitely flawed. The film feels tonally all over the place between wanting to be realistic and then going into super camp mode.
The first third of the film is flat out mediocre. Everything that happens in the first act could have been done in half the time or less - especially because none of what happens is interesting in the slightest. There are a few nice/funny moments sprinkled about, but the opening act is going through the motions central. Luckily, the film dramatically improves after that.
Martin Sheen is an excellent Uncle Ben. Sally Field is a godawful Aunt May. In fact, those two are a good example of what I mean when I say the film constantly bounces between the no bullshit approach to this world and the cartoony. Aunt May is super cartoony, while Uncle Ben acts like a real uncle might if their nephew was acting like a selfish little cunt.
That brings me to what I may as well get out of the way - my biggest problem with the film. Spiderman is a cunt. The movie tries to get you to empathize with his situation of losing his parents and how depressed/aggravated he is, that it loses focus on the fact that we're suppose to respect him. I don't respect Peter in this movie, because he acts like a little twat and never becomes a man in the film. I know many will groan at me bringing up the Raimi films, but remember how Peter moved out of his Aunt's place and would struggle for jobs just to keep his head above water, whilst desperately trying to do the right thing by everybody else? It wasn't because Peter is a perfect saint - it's because at that point in his life, Peter is really learning what responsibility means. He's becoming a man. A SPIDER-MAN! I won't spoil why Garfield's Peter doesn't come across this way, but I'll just say that the 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility' is totally lost in this film. There is definitely a weight on Garfield's Parker in this film, but it isn't responsibility.
The action was really good most of the time. I liked that in quite a few scenes, the action never seemed staged. It was very matter of fact 'this is happening in front of me' and that Spider-Man moved like a motherfuckin' spider. Really great stuff.
Emma Stone was great and Gwen overall was really well done. I really liked her role in the story for the most part. She's easily the most likable character in the whole film.
Dr. Connors is yet another example of the mishmash that is this film. First act he's completely normal and awesome. Once he turns into the lizard he makes the Green Goblin seem subtle in terms of the dialogue he delivers. His character takes a completely ridiculous 180 and overall is just a horrible, horrible fucking villain outside of the physical monster film baddie that he's become.
The film has a lot of instances that feel like they've studied the first film and substituted scenes and characters for others in a super-lazy way.
Connors talking to himself like Willem Dafoe? C'mon Doc!
In fact, at the start of the film I immediately thought they were riffing Batman Begins.
Garfield himself was very decent. There are a couple of good Spidy zingers, but there are just as many that fall flat.
And that's probably the best way to sum up the film. Webb absolutely nails the little moments and interactions, but there is never one fist-pumping moment in the whole thing. All the big moments fall flat and feel somewhat forced.
Horner's score was an unmemorable and bland to say the least. Completely phoned in.
This review being all over the place is a pretty good representation of the film.
Overall I enjoyed it. It's definitely worth seeing at the movies. It's leagues better than Raimi's awful Spider-Man 3, but doesn't come close to Raimi's first two films. I no longer feel cynical about Sony rebooting the film so early, yet at the same time wish that it hadn't been an origin story again as I feel a lot of what worked in this film was held back by clumsy handling of that baggage we've already seen unpacked.
Yes (During the credits, not at the end, for those that are going to see it)
*spoilers*
They show Connors in a prison cell. Out of the shadows comes a man (presumably Norman Osborn) asking Connors if he told Peter what really happened to his parents. Connors says no. He then pleads with Osborn to not hurt the boy. Osborn leaves, cut to rest of the credits.
Would be pretty great if it was pointed out it isn't allowed, even if as the mods says the word has never been allowed, it has been used unpunished for a long time now (even by mods) so a thread or something pointing it out to avoid completely unnecessary and silly bans like this. It's pretty obvious people aren't aware of it.
Would be pretty great if it was pointed out it isn't allowed, even if as the mods says the word has never been allowed, it has been used unpunished for a long time now (even by mods) so a thread or something pointing it out to avoid completely unnecessary and silly bans like this. It's pretty obvious people aren't aware of it.
Bizarre. I guess we'll have to stick to gender neutral body-related insults now. There's gonna be a whole lot off assholes and buttholes tossed around.
Yes (During the credits, not at the end, for those that are going to see it)
*spoilers*
They show Connors in a prison cell. Out of the shadows comes a man (presumably Norman Osborn) asking Connors if he told Peter what really happened to his parents. Connors says no. He then pleads with Osborn to not hurt the boy. Osborn leaves, cut to rest of the credits.
Just got back from it. Thought it was great -- much better Spider-Man action this time too. It had its holes, but suspension of disbelief was good enough for me. Really liked it.
Their take on the origin fell a little flat imo, but it got the job done. 2nd act was the best part for me.
Still can't get over how well they captured (my interpretation of) how Spider-Man would fight/move/swing. Really put it right next to SM2 for me, and will see again to judge after some cooling time.
I thought it was great. Much better than the Raimi movies. They really nailed the characters. The swinging was awesome. the only crap part was the crane scene. WTF?!
That line word for word is not in the movie, but Uncle Ben does in fact give Peter the talk about power and responsibility, just in a more roundabout way. Don't worry, the essence is in there
Saw it. Enjoyed it. Liked it more than the last three. They reimagined Peter Parker a bit so he's less nerdy right from the start. If this prevents us from having another Toby MacGuire, where he's nerdy enough to play Peter Parker and far too nerdy to play Spider-Man, I'm all for it.
They changed it to something like "If you can do good things, you have a responsibility to do those things" or whatever. Except more natural sounding that that and less awkward. I forget the exact wording. I always thought some old dude telling his nerdy nephew about how to use "great power" was kind of weird anyway.
Huge crowd of people to see this tonight. Hyped, but pissed as my friend forgot to get the imax tickets early and shit is sold out. Couldnt even get the poster :,(
I always thought some old dude telling his nerdy nephew about how to use "great power" was kind of weird anyway.
