Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
As of now I don't plan on seeing the new Spider-Man. That the movie is another origin story is what is turning me off. I've already see it and I don't need to see it again.
I think there's going to be some serious damage control going on as we get closer to next summer. Unless they're holding some really amazing sequences that aren't finished, yet. I don't see how this can compete with the other event movies of next summer (DKR. Avengers, etc.).
I can't wait for all the nerds to angrily call this the "Spider-Man" film "for girls!"
I wish I could muster up some anger. I'm merely at the apathetic and head-scratching phases at this point.
I haven't seen "Rescue Me" (Leary's heroic in that, right?), so I still think of Denis Leary as a comedian who perfected a smarmy asshole persona, and that's what he's brought to every role I've seen him in. And Rhys Ifans has almost always played a drunk or a slacker (albeit a charming one) in any movie I've seen him in, so he's one of the last guys I'd think of as a promising villain for a comic book movie (I tend to expect people with gravitas for such roles). I know I'm typecasting, but it's hard not to when the movie involves actors who have played such well-defined types so many times.
I thought, while "Rescue Me" got more ridiculous, Leary became such a better actor as time went on, and on that show he's sometimes DeNiro-esque. I think this will be more of a stern humorless turn from him, though (possibly a lot like the dad in The Sandlot?), so I wouldn't imagine it will make a difference.
Ifans, though - UGH.
I forgot that Leary was in "The Sandlot". Even then I thought it was weird seeing him play a serious role since I only knew him from his "Asshole" music video at the time, but if he's since learned to play a straight role with intensity (through his TV show), kudos to him.
I'm not going to write off someone's ability to do a dramatic role just because they spent years being known for comedic roles. Bryan Cranston is the best example I can think of for how someone can excel tremendously at drama after years of comedy (and his comedy chops help give his recent work some dark humour sometimes).
But yeah, Ifans is still a headscratcher for me. I liked him as a serious character in "Greenberg", but I still just think of a scruffy boozehound every time I see him. I know he got more clean cut-looking for this role, but I'll never be able to look at him and not think of Hugh Grant's schlub roommate who walks around in his undies in "Notting Hill".
What's more, Ifans seemed to play exactly the same scruffy boozehound in every British film released between 1996-1999. I don't know how it seemed in other countries, but in the UK he was pushed HARD to the point of exhaustion, and he never showed the kind of range you need to graduate from 'It-Guy' status.
He's actually really good in the otherwise completely and utterly fucking terrible 'Neverland' Syfy miniseries. He pretty effortlessly switches from genuine paternal warmth to self-interested bastard to outright asshole.
Renn, why not just not go see it? Is that simply not an option?
SPOILER: The hair is the real villain of this movie.
I can understand why some might not be on board with this movie, but seeing set images like this make me optimistic.
Just imagine how that will look on film.
I can understand why some might not be on board with this movie, but seeing set images like this make me optimistic.
Just imagine how that will look on film.
But... we don't need to 'imagine' anything - we've already had three movies of visceral, well-shot effectively directed web-swinging action in the last decade - what more is there to imagine exactly?
I just remembered that the last superhero movie I saw at the cinema was Spider-Man 2. It's been years since I've even felt vaguely interested to go see a movie along these themes unfortunately.
But... we don't need to 'imagine' anything - we've already had three movies of visceral, well-shot effectively directed web-swinging action in the last decade - what more is there to imagine exactly?
I would say the appeal is seeing it done practically - one could divorce from reality enough in those movies to assume that you were watching Spider-Man swinging around. But at any point did you think that was actually a real human being under that costume? Raimi's absurd (and sometimes awesome) action theatrics kind of prevented you from ever believing that was real. In this film, the company line will be a more retro "You're gonna see this dude FLY*." It's an ok hook to bring in the skeptics, I would say.
*Yes, I know Spidey doesn't fly.
If they can give the same kind of over the shoulder shots with similar momentum and movements(obviously on a realistic scale, I'm not expecting the impossible) then yeah, that would be cool and something we've never really seen before.
If only their big, splashy action tease wasn't a fucking video game cut-scene.
... The complete and utter anti thesis of what we were just talking about, yeah. If they insert CG into a movie that's largely practical that will be even more jarring.
There's a lot of interesting choices made by Webb that I'd like to judge more fully -- I think the trailer might have overstated the final film's tone, given the nature of other reports on certain scenes -- when it arrives in theaters, my strong reservations notwithstanding. I'm happy that they are, for instance, fleshing out Gwen Stacy and her family this time around. I like the cast in their roles more than I did for some in the Raimi flicks. I'm intrigued by the initial absence of Mary Jane. I like that Webb himself seems to have a different idea for some of the action sequences, even if the tease at the end of the first trailer was baffling.
But if the trailer is representative of the film as a whole, and not an unbalanced look at its larger picture, then this will easily be a disappointment on par with LANTERN in terms of genre misfires. My greatest hope is that this is at least better than expected and offers some different insights into the early stages of Spidey.
Wha different insights are there to be mined, though? Without going the atrocious "The Parkers: Agents of SHIELD" route.
I thought they were OSS Nazi Hunting Agents?
I'm hazy on the specifics and am going by an Untold Tales front cover.
Quote:
I'm happy that they are, for instance, fleshing out Gwen Stacy and her family this time around... I'm intrigued by the initial absence of Mary Jane.
The kids are sure going to be confused about all this. Re-casting (granted Batman and Hulk have gone through similar shuffles), different girlfriend, origin all over again. Or maybe I'm not giving the scamps enough credit.
Kids?
If I wasn't a Spidey fan but I saw the movies, I would say, wait... I thought he was in love with MJ?
And then I would be like, oh, so this is a different girl. Gwen Stacy. Wait a second, wasn't Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3? And she was not at all in love with him?
And then my head would explode. I imagine it would slowly reform, and I'd eventually go see the movie, because I would probably be a lemming. Law of averages.
Also, they're probably using the Parker parents in the "Ultimate" mode, where they're scientists, I believe, for OsCorp. They were biologists who died in a mysterious plane crash while researching a cure for cancer that soon became Venom. I'm betting this time around their research will involve using their son as a test subject, but not being able to synthesize his blood with a spider before passing. Or something super convoluted like that, an idea that emphasizes the "destiny" of Spider-Man or some shit. Clearly, it's not enough that he WANTS to be Spidey.
Kids?
If I wasn't a Spidey fan but I saw the movies, I would say, wait... I thought he was in love with MJ?
And then I would be like, oh, so this is a different girl. Gwen Stacy. Wait a second, wasn't Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3? And she was not at all in love with him?
And then my head would explode. I imagine it would slowly reform, and I'd eventually go see the movie, because I would probably be a lemming. Law of averages.
Also, they're probably using the Parker parents in the "Ultimate" mode, where they're scientists, I believe, for OsCorp. They were biologists who died in a mysterious plane crash while researching a cure for cancer that soon became Venom. I'm betting this time around their research will involve using their son as a test subject, but not being able to synthesize his blood with a spider before passing. Or something super convoluted like that, an idea that emphasizes the "destiny" of Spider-Man or some shit. Clearly, it's not enough that he WANTS to be Spidey.
Do you know what? I am a die hard Spider-Man fan, this is the least interested I have ever been in an upcoming comic book film and yet...
This has made me loathe the whole project that little bit more. Kudos to you Gabe
Also, they're probably using the Parker parents in the "Ultimate" mode, where they're scientists, I believe, for OsCorp. They were biologists who died in a mysterious plane crash while researching a cure for cancer that soon became Venom. I'm betting this time around their research will involve using their son as a test subject, but not being able to synthesize his blood with a spider before passing. Or something super convoluted like that, an idea that emphasizes the "destiny" of Spider-Man or some shit. Clearly, it's not enough that he WANTS to be Spidey.
Oh wow. More soap opera stuff. Because that's exactly what a Spidey film needs. Why the hell couldn't Marvel keep all the "everybody is related to everybody and everyone has or is going to sleep with everyone" stuff in X-Men where it belongs? I'm glad the Death of Superman scam made me drop buying comics regularly because I'd fucking flip my shit if I paid for stuff like that.
I really hope this is in this new movie so I can ignore it and be done.
I'll laugh my ass off if this ends up being better than The Avengers. I don't necessarily expect that, and probably won't see either in theaters anyway, but I'm beginning to suspect that this won't be the absolute shit that hardcore fans of the Raimi trilogy (containing exactly 1 1/2 good films) expect it to be.
I think it'll be boring rather than outright shit. And "boring" is one adjective you could never apply to Raimi's Spidey films.
I think it'll be boring rather than outright shit. And "boring" is one adjective you could never apply to Raimi's Spidey films.
Wellllllllll, that third one now...
Seriously? I'm one of the defenders of Spidey 3, and I've never had to defend it for being boring. We have several excellent set pieces(The New Goblin fight, the Sandman subway fight is sadly more fun and cinematic than anything likely in this new movie) the goofy dancing sequence which ties into the whole arc of Pete losing his shit... There isn't a slow moment in Spidey 3, it doesn't have a moment to take it's breathe, there's too much story to tell.
You know what, I was just pondering on the fight between Pete and Harry in Harry's mansion, and it's an EXCELLENT fight. Kinetic, incredibly interesting, dangerous, fun, and most important we're invested in the characters. It's a cat fight between two people who's relationship is imploding and thus it matters emotionally on top of all that. I'd say for my money Spidey 3 is better than Spidey 1, and almost as much fun as Spidey 2. Yeah I said it.
I have never understood the complete hatred for SPIDER-MAN 3. It has problems, sure, but there's great stuff in there. It's a mixed bag, not a total disaster. And it's not boring.
It was time to bring something fresh to the series, but this scorched earth reboot is seemingly too much.
I have no problem with the scorched earth idea - Raimi's movies were great, but they're not gospel. It's just that the feeling is their attitude is, "Let's not make it like Sam's movies... let's make it like any other type of generic movie!" From what we've seen, the visuals are dull, perfunctory, and, at best, servicable. The primary colors are ugly, the lighting looks daffy (this will be improved in the final product, I have no doubt), and the photos released so far suggest a ground-level approach. Which, if that's the case, fine - make a low-budget, indie "Peter Parker" movie. That might honestly be interesting. If only.
The key is what they do with this mystery about Parker's parents. If it's anything like the dullness I outlined up there, then the whole thing is going to be an exercise in "why bother?"
Bottom line, those early movies were made by people who read and understood comic books. This doesn't look like that at all.
Also, Spider-Man 3 is kinda ridiculous, but it kinda rules, too. It's a movie filled with absurd artistic miscalculations, random story developments and casting mishaps. Never in a million years would I call it "boring."
"Spider-Man 3" captures the look and feel of the '90s comics: overstuffed, dark for darkness' sake and Venom's shoehorned in for no reason. That's why I kind of have a soft spot for it.
Ons thing I hope even the most ardent Raimi apologists could concede is that it actually looks like this reboot is doing something interesting with Captain Stacy, whereas Spiderman 3 basically fucked around with him for a few minutes. He's one of my favorite human characters from the comics and, by all accounts, he's going to have an actual, fleshed-out dynamic with Spider-Man. James Cromwell, as much as I love him, was just kind of...there...in Spiderman 3 (which is actually indicative of the main problem in the movie: everything is there and should theoretically be fun, but it all falls apart.)
Just to clarify, the 1/2 good movie for me is Spider-Man 3. To this day I think the first film is a bad movie.
Seriously? I'm one of the defenders of Spidey 3, and I've never had to defend it for being boring. We have several excellent set pieces(The New Goblin fight, the Sandman subway fight is sadly more fun and cinematic than anything likely in this new movie) the goofy dancing sequence which ties into the whole arc of Pete losing his shit... There isn't a slow moment in Spidey 3, it doesn't have a moment to take it's breathe, there's too much story to tell.
You know what, I was just pondering on the fight between Pete and Harry in Harry's mansion, and it's an EXCELLENT fight. Kinetic, incredibly interesting, dangerous, fun, and most important we're invested in the characters. It's a cat fight between two people who's relationship is imploding and thus it matters emotionally on top of all that. I'd say for my money Spidey 3 is better than Spidey 1, and almost as much fun as Spidey 2. Yeah I said it.
What about the grand finale where Mary Jane is, once again, for the third film in a row, suspended from a great height...and where Parker gets his hands tied together not once, but twice? It's so plodding and devoid of any originality. I need more than special effects and bright shiny objects to keep my attention.
What's also taxing is the constant melodrama. Peter crying on the bridge. Peter crying to his police scanner. Aunt May crying to Peter. MJ crying to Peter. Harry crying to himself.
Wait. MJ. Harry.
Oh god, that just reminded me of cooking omelettes.....
And I don't have COMPLETE HATRED(tm) for the third installment, but I do acknowledge that it bores the hell out of me more often than not.
I just remembered that the last superhero movie I saw at the cinema was Spider-Man 2. It's been years since I've even felt vaguely interested to go see a movie along these themes unfortunately.
Why unfortunately? Personally, I happen to like the genre, but it's just that, a genre, and thus not for everybody. You shouldn't feel guilty for no longer being interested - it's not like you start losing geek cred or something for not seeing superhero flicks.
If only their big, splashy action tease wasn't a fucking video game cut-scene.
I'll be very surprised if that POV shot makes it into the movie as anything other than this movie's version of the closing scene from the first Raimi movie. I could even see it being footage shot especially for that trailer.
Gotta agree about the grand finalenfeeling tiresome. The only good thing about it was JK Simmons getting conned by a little girl and the manner in which Spidey uses noise to remove the parasite.
Spiderman 3 has some good elements, but there's also a fuckload of botched scenes and missed opportunities. It's a bore in spite of its typical style.
Why unfortunately? Personally, I happen to like the genre, but it's just that, a genre, and thus not for everybody. You shouldn't feel guilty for no longer being interested - it's not like you start losing geek cred or something for not seeing superhero flicks.
Sadly, I've just been increasingly losing interest with the whole medium of film in general. I'm seeing a lot less than I used to and being less enthused by the few I do see unfortunately. Which is a bit of a shame, from what I understand, the best superhero films are getting better than ever. I suspect the handful of films I have recently thought were good would have really wowed me in years past.
I happen to like the genre, but it's just that, a genre, and thus not for everybody. You shouldn't feel guilty for no longer being interested - it's not like you start losing geek cred or something for not seeing superhero flicks.
Dismiss a whole genre? A bit close-minded, but...ok?
Sadly, I've just been increasingly losing interest with the whole medium of film in general.
So weird/disheartening to see these kind of comments ^ here on CHUD.
And SPIDEY 3? I was too head-scratchingly exasperated with the contrivances, conveniences, and poor character decisions to be bored.
I guess it's weird or disheartening, but I've been noticing more of that on CHUD, and not just from people with a negative attitude. They fit that Joe Dante quote to a T: There are people who love movies, and then there are people who love the movies they love. This may sound elitist, but I have very little interest in the opinions of the second type.
Sadly, I've just been increasingly losing interest with the whole medium of film in general. I'm seeing a lot less than I used to and being less enthused by the few I do see unfortunately.
You're seeing the wrong stuff then Shan. Time to go on a bit of a bender mate and track down all those old movies or genres or classics you've always meant to get to but never have.
Try some Kurosawa you haven't seen, some Corman 'Women In Prison' movies or some blaxploitation. Jump into the Shaw brothers or some Lars Von Trier - sit down to a classic Hitchcock or David Lean you've never seen. Watch or rewatch some 70's Hollywood classics like Five Easy Pieces or The Last Detail or hell, dip into a deadset classic again like The Godfather. Watch Duck Soup or National Lampoons Vacation. Explore the films of a country you've not really watched much of before, english speaking or otherwise.
Dude - there are just so many good movies out there that you'll never have time to watch and you're only getting to stuff that isn't impressing you? I get that times precious, but that jsut means you need to be more discerning - there are still great great movies out there sir.
Fellow Chewers: This is serious guys, one of our own is losing the faith. I'll be the first to admit I'm not the film geek I was as a a younger man and that the bulk of Hollywoods output right now I find mostly uninspiring if not downright disspiriting - but Shan, to give up on 'the whole medium in general'??? Sir this will not stand. Cannot.
I'm almost tempted to start a thread for people to recommend stuff for you. You're in Melbourne aren't you? Hell I'll lend you a bunch of awesome stuff.
You're seeing the wrong stuff then Shan. Time to go on a bit of a bender mate and track down all those old movies or genres or classics you've always meant to get to but never have.
Try some Kurosawa you haven't seen, some Corman 'Women In Prison' movies or some blaxploitation. Jump into the Shaw brothers or some Lars Von Trier - sit down to a classic Hitchcock or David Lean you've never seen. Watch or rewatch some 70's Hollywood classics like Five Easy Pieces or The Last Detail or hell, dip into a deadset classic again like The Godfather. Watch Duck Soup or National Lampoons Vacation. Explore the films of a country you've not really watched much of before, english speaking or otherwise.
Dude - there are just so many good movies out there that you'll never have time to watch and you're only getting to stuff that isn't impressing you? I get that times precious, but that jsut means you need to be more discerning - there are still great great movies out there sir.
Fellow Chewers: This is serious guys, one of our own is losing the faith. I'll be the first to admit I'm not the film geek I was as a a younger man and that the bulk of Hollywoods output right now I find mostly uninspiring if not downright disspiriting - but Shan, to give up on 'the whole medium in general'??? Sir this will not stand. Cannot.
I'm almost tempted to start a thread for people to recommend stuff for you. You're in Melbourne aren't you? Hell I'll lend you a bunch of awesome stuff.
I heartily endorse this statement. Sometimes your attention gets focussed on what Hollywood's churning out now, that we forget all the amazing stuff from the past that's waiting to blow our minds. If the current stuff's sucking, you can consider that a green ligght for some classic-chasing.
I heartily endorse this statement. Sometimes your attention gets focussed on what Hollywood's churning out now, that we forget all the amazing stuff from the past that's waiting to blow our minds. If the current stuff's sucking, you can consider that a green ligght for some classic-chasing.
My love of foreign cinema has skyrocketed in the last decade or so because I'll take a Let The Right One In, a Downfall or a Detective Dee And The Mystery Of The Phantom Flame over an Iron Man or Transformers 2 any day.
There's just no competition. Hollywood still makes some great movies here and there, but they've got serious competition.
So weird/disheartening to see these kind of comments ^ here on CHUD.
I should explain myself and clarify my position, I seem to have handed everyone the wrong end of the stick.
I guess it's weird or disheartening, but I've been noticing more of that on CHUD, and not just from people with a negative attitude. They fit that Joe Dante quote to a T: There are people who love movies, and then there are people who love the movies they love. This may sound elitist, but I have very little interest in the opinions of the second type.
I used to like computer games a lot but just over time, I lost interest in them, I can even pick the moment. It was after I bought Doom 3 and Half Life 2 when they came out. I finished Doom 3 once and I found I probably couldn't run Half Life 2 on my existing PC. I put it away to use later and to this day I haven't installed it ... or played any other computer game. I loved the first Half Life and Opposing Force too. I'm sure the best games have gotten even better but as of now, I've just got no interest. That's no fault in the medium, I guess I just got old. I guess what I'm also trying to say is that the same thing is happening with me and movies too, I've just lost the motivating drive over time to go and see them these days.
You're seeing the wrong stuff then Shan. Time to go on a bit of a bender mate and track down all those old movies or genres or classics you've always meant to get to but never have.
Try some Kurosawa you haven't seen, some Corman 'Women In Prison' movies or some blaxploitation. Jump into the Shaw brothers or some Lars Von Trier - sit down to a classic Hitchcock or David Lean you've never seen. Watch or rewatch some 70's Hollywood classics like Five Easy Pieces or The Last Detail or hell, dip into a deadset classic again like The Godfather. Watch Duck Soup or National Lampoons Vacation. Explore the films of a country you've not really watched much of before, english speaking or otherwise.
Dude - there are just so many good movies out there that you'll never have time to watch and you're only getting to stuff that isn't impressing you? I get that times precious, but that jsut means you need to be more discerning - there are still great great movies out there sir.
Fellow Chewers: This is serious guys, one of our own is losing the faith. I'll be the first to admit I'm not the film geek I was as a a younger man and that the bulk of Hollywoods output right now I find mostly uninspiring if not downright disspiriting - but Shan, to give up on 'the whole medium in general'??? Sir this will not stand. Cannot.
I'm almost tempted to start a thread for people to recommend stuff for you. You're in Melbourne aren't you? Hell I'll lend you a bunch of awesome stuff.
I'm not from Melbourne, I'm from its dark mirror universe alternate - a.k.a Sydney (I guess we can't be friends now). I don't think the range of material I've seen here is special compared to people here but I was watching Japanese and Korean movies whenever they came out in the cinema here as far back as the nineties. I've also seen a lot of movies from right across the world and time periods from China/Hong Kong to Russia, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Germany, France and Spain. I have actual crates in storage full of Japanese and Korean DVDs I bought off ebay and elsewhere. In fact, because of Japanese and Korean cinema, I went to formal classes in both languages. I'm nowhere near fluent but I can still have actual conversations with people from there (I can add German to that now). Not just your standard linear narrative material but a lot of surrealist stuff as well (saying Dario Argento is self explanatory and I still think Dellamorte Dellamore is great).
I know this is still just a fraction of what's out there but I think the problem with me isn't what's available, there's always good stuff out there if you dig hard enough. A strategy I found that works well is to pick a country where you haven't seen much or any of their cinema and find out what people think are all the good ones and start with those. That seems to work very well. I had a very high success rate with South Korean movies for starters.
I haven't been going out of my way to see stuff that wouldn't impress me on purpose, in fact the opposite, I've been carefully selecting things to see with the hope that they would. It just hasn't been working out as well as I would have hoped. All up, I went 6 times to the cinema last year, I used to go much more often.
I think once again, I just went on to fall out of interest with going to see movies in general. I also know there's a lot of good stuff on TV but all I'm watching now is BBC News and Nat Geo documentaries (and Fringe occasionally because I'm a sucker for alternate/multiverse world fiction. I do also watch Doctor Who but it's increasingly like it's out of obligation more than anything else).
However ..
I heartily endorse this statement. Sometimes your attention gets focussed on what Hollywood's churning out now, that we forget all the amazing stuff from the past that's waiting to blow our minds. If the current stuff's sucking, you can consider that a green ligght for some classic-chasing.
... I think given time I'll snap out of it. Maybe I just needed a break. At least those of us from Australia know our government run station SBS (yay socialism! j/k) which frequently has foreign movies on and I did recently catch one called Die Welle (The Wave), co-incidentally after my German class. It was based on the real life incident known as The Third Wave experiment in an American high school and it was excellent. If something is on that I literally have to make no effort to go see (i.e on the box) once in a while I'll start watching it and really like it.
Now that I've thought about it, I remember that last year one of the local video stores was closing down (now that's a tragedy of a different kind) and I bought a lot of liquidated stock and there were some absolute gems amongst that lot. I've only seen a fraction of them and they've already made the cost of the purchase of the whole lot worthwhile. I can't believe I forgot about that. So I guess that the magic hasn't completely lost its effect on me. Maybe all it takes is for me to get out a few movies and watch them like I used to do to kick start things again.
I've still been noting down all the recommendations you all make that I think I will be interested in just for that very reason.
Quick summary version of the above post for people in a hurry:
Maybe just going through a phase and will get over it perhaps?
(edit: My 666th post. I wonder if that's in any way significant?)
Bingo.
...and for what it's worth, I went to the cinema about the same amount as you last year, maybe a tiny bit more but not much and I don't think of myself as losing the passion - life just gets in the way is all and as you get older you just can't prioritize your geeky passions like you used to - nor may you even want to for that matter. Other things get your attention now.
That doesn't stop you being in love with movies Shan, a coupla goodies and you'll wonder what the fuss was about. You've had a bad run from the sound of things.
I recommend a healthy dose of classics you've not seen yet or at least in a lotta years.
PS - we can still be friends even if you're from that ghastly city up north, it's not your fault you don't get to live in a city as awesome as mine.
