THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN post release discussion - Page 3

 

A good time at the movies...

 

We have become a nation of "just give me a good time, I don't care about the specifics or what the result is...I just wanna feel good NOW!". 

 

The McDonald's cheeseburger is probably the proper allegorical symbol.  Forget the fact that if you left one in the backseat of your car for a year, it would look exactly the same as on the day you bought it.  Real food decomposes.  It's the same with movies.  Twenty years from now I will watch District 9 and still get something new and fresh from it, it will have evolved with my tastes and sensibility.  Like a real cheeseburger, it will have decomposed in a sense, changing and shifting biochemically with the enviornment in order to offer something new...or like a bottle of wine, which will taste different depending on when you open it, because the contents are alive.

 

Now if I watch Transformers, or The Transporter, or let's say the reboot of Spider-Man in twenty years, there will be nothing.  No change, no new perspective, other than "wow, the FX are really crummy".  There will be nothing new gained from it, because I already have Raimi's film, which, while flawed (but no more flawed than the reboot from all accounts), was pretty great...and in twenty years, since both movies will have outdated FX, but will be virtually identical in terms of "fashion" so to speak (this isn't Godard's Breathless versus McBride's remake set 20 years later), it will simply be a choice between picking the film that satisfied me originally.

 

Having such an elevated view on film (and I don't mean better than others, I just mean a wider perspective), I am too aware of these differences to ignore them.  I can't ignore them.  I've taken the red pill.  I am out of the Matrix in a sense, and can't ignore what I'm seeing.  And I'm not trying to be self righteous here, nor do I feel like this is some super battle of good versus evil...good being the pure fan of film, evil being the big bad corporation.  It's just that I know the difference between a McDonald's cheeseburger and one I buy from the grocery store and make myself.  I know that if I put them in the back seat of my car, a year from now, one will look exactly the same and offer nothing new to me, and the other will cause me to crane my neck...because it will look different, it will look weird, it will offer something new.  So I feel like those that are choosing to ignore this movie deserve more respect than to be written off as frothing at the mouth, elitist "haters ".  We like genre movies.  We like going to the movies and having a good time.  But we also feel the need to exercise vigilance in the face of corporate shenanigans.  I don't want reboots to color the landscape as they have, so I am not giving Sony my money.

That's too bad you can't enjoy THE TRANSPORTER, I think it's a hoot: http://youtu.be/7Ea5BVdCoUk?t=6s

 

I dig your passion and they way you convey it concisely and intelligently, and I definitely agree with you. But I think you (and a lot of people, myself included) have chosen a hell of a thing to be into while wearing your heart on your sleeve.

 

Just like anything else -- pro sports, for example -- when you know too much about what goes on behind the scenes, it becomes hard to not be let down and resentful about it all the time. Especially with genre films, which are easily the most shady and laden with bullshit in their productions. I respect your perspective, but I think you'll miss out on some enjoyable movies -- but I understand why. It's hard to be in awe of the Wizard, when you've seen the little old man behind the curtain. Especially when the little old man is a total dickhead.

 

No I wont.

Ha ha ha!

 

Hi, my name is Ambler,

 

I enjoy long walks on the beach, complaining about how society has gone all to hell and how easy this new generation has it.  Also, chasing those damned kids off my lawn!  Lastly, I believe that there is never a good reason for music to be played at anything above a reasonable volume.

Yea Ambler, why don't you go back to the retirement home and do some more in-depth, critical thinking about movies? Or are your decrepit brittle bones too old and weak to carry you.

 

You're old. That's what I'm getting at here. Because it's funny.

How fucked-up is it that hating the corporatization of creativity makes you old and out-of-touch?
 

Time for you to "get hip" to "what's happening NOW" Merriweather! Sell out! Take what "The Man" gives you, no matter how shitty or much you are treated with contempt by your corporate masters!

Great point, Jackson. "Get with the times, Old Man, and eat the shit you're being served!"

 

EDIT: Ha, I see several of us had the thought at the same time. I'm already envisioning the collective "PFFFT" while folks score their tickets on Fandango. Expecting quality? Having a desire for stuff that's daring and imaginative? Welcome to AARP, Oldy Oldums!

 

DOUBLE EDIT: To clarify, people that urge me to think less or lower my expectations are the absolute worst.

I'm waiting to be called a blind sheep due to my devotion to the Raimi films and my unwillingness to give in to Sony's creative bankruptcy.

I've come to terms with the fact that this move by Sony was done because they wanted to make a movie just in time so they could keep the film rights to Spider-Man from Disney and that rebooting the origin story would be easier within that time frame than coming up with something new.

With that aside, I just hope the results are as good as the first two Raimi's, or even better. I don't mind the same story being told because what I'm interested in is how this new cast and Marc Webb puts their own spin. Stories have been retold many times, this is nothing new. I don't think Sony has made the best decision, but I think they could have done much worse. In the end, what I hope to get is another darn good Spider-Man film with a new cast and crew putting their own stamp, despite the reuse of the origin story.

They didn't HAVE to reboot. Could have kept going in different ways without retreading Raimi.

 

On the other hand, WB HAD to reboot Superman for the next movie in order to retain their share of the rights dating back to Action Comics #1. It sucks and I don't like it. But I get it.

I agree, they didn't have to. But they did and it's done. It sucks and I don't like it, but regardless I hope something good comes out of it. So far I think the cast for this film is more impressive than the Raimi flicks, I just hope they managed to pull off something interesting and fun.

Also, rebooting Superman makes sense after Returns led that pseudo-continuity into a corner no one wanted to get out of. I wish they would just jump in and make a Superman movie minus Krypton or Zod, but at least the concept of a reboot on that front can be justified.

Jeez guys I was just foolin'!

Ha ha ha!  So the Chud Forums Walking Dead Thread is a Spiderman Villian?

For anyone interested, we're up and running with a review:

 

http://www.chud.com/98703/review-the-amazing-spider-man/

Saw this coming from a mile away.

 

Yeah, forget all that individuality and free thinking shit.

 

Why are you so threatened?  If you want to see this movie, see it.  Why does every man woman and child need to see it too for you to feel secure in your decision making?  Be an adult.

 

And I never said Transformers and The Transporter are off limits.  I enjoy those films.  I accept 99% of Hollywood films.  I only make exceptions for obvious rubber stamps like The Amazing Spider-Man.  But I do not like this trend of treating these Hollywood films like they're cuisine or something, because most of them aren't.  I hate seeing long threads dedicated to most of these films and like two pages to the latest PT Anderson film.  And we wonder why Hollywood keeps churning out shit?  They have no reason to change.

Edited by Ambler - 6/27/12 at 1:11pm

"Smarmy" "Stupid" Peter Parker?  Yeah, pass.

I wonder why they decided to make the Lizard sentient and aware of himself. Making the Lizard a villain with actual motivations seems like a real misstep and, like the review says, undercooked and shoehorned in. Connors becoming the Lizard and ending up completely out of control -- both a danger to himself and everyone else -- is something we haven't seen in a Spider-Man villain on the screen. Having both Spider-Man and Captain Stacy chasing him down (Spider-Man because he feels responsible for helping him get like that, and wanting to save him from himself, and Stacy because the Lizard is a dangerous threat to the populace), and having the two of them at odds with one another at the same time may have made for a more compelling story.

 

And ads fuel to the whole "hero or menace?" motif that the character has always had to endure. It's too bad they went with the safe, lazy concept.

 

Good write-up.

 

Because hiring an actor like Rhys Ifans only to replace him with a rampaging retard-monster is dumb and boring? I'm not saying he works in the film, I haven't seen it, but if he doesn't work it's not because they made the Lizard an articulate and motivated villain. I'll be shocked if his motivation makes any less sense than Norman Osborn's in the original film.

Yeah.  This wasn't good.  It wasn't awful.  It was just there, being a retread of the first movie for the most part.

 

The untold story it claims to tell isn't even told.  I guess that's being saved for the sequel.

 

This movie should be called:

 

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN: CRANES UNITE!

 

Best shot of the film?  The graphical display on Connors' computer that shows how lizard-people will spread across the city.  GOOFY FUN!

 

Ok, so most people here are already kinda expecting little from this movie, so I'll focus on some positives.  I thought the movie did a really great job of showing off Spider-man's powers.  I mean, I thought they were already great in Raimi's films, but this one is impressive in showing some creative ways that Spider-man can be an action hero.  So, if that's what you want from a reboot, you'll probably like it.  

 

Now, Tim's review pointed out that the use of 3D was impressive in the movie.  I found it really only impressive during the action sequences (during which some of the sequences will open up to a bigger letterbox for IMAX3D patrons, which was a nice surprise), and even then... not so much.  Maybe it's because I was never very engaged in what I was watching in terms of content, but I wouldn't write home about the 3D aside from the fact that there was nothing that looked bad.  But you shouldn't be quick to trust me on this point.  I thought the 3D in The Avengers was pretty solid, and I recall most people suggesting skipping it.

 

Here's a little bit of what I typed up on Facebook after seeing the movie:

 

 

 

 

Edited by mcnooj82 - 6/27/12 at 3:54pm

 

Man, I said I was just poking fun.  I'm on record stating that most Hollywood fare these days is extremely disposable.  And I never said I like Trashformers!  You shut your damned mouth!  (again, just goofing.)

 

Love the Transporter films though, so sue me.  

 

Anyway, good reviews or not, this Spiderman movie looks completely uninteresting for no other reason than it's retreading the damned origin story again.  Great God Chtulu, he was bitten by a fucking weird spider, got strong and shit, blah blah, great responsibility, blah blah, we get it!

 

Not good enough! Cardinal Biggles - the Comfy Chair!!!!

 

Oh my gawd, why don't you marry the Amazing Spider-Man if you love it so much, and then you can consummate your unholy union on the grave of the perpetually spinning Sam Raimi whose cinematic legacy you are simultaneously defiling with your conditional support of this abomination!

 

Good write-up though.

 

Disagree, The Lizard works best as a repitlian Bond Villian, at least in comic books. Wouldn't a rampaging Lizard just come across as Cloverfield light to the average movie goer?

The Lizard even has some schizophrenic elements similar to Dafoe's Green Goblin, but it's really only done with a slop of Lizard voiceover tormenting Connors.  Nothing as fun or creative as Dafoe talking to himself in the mirror.  It's brought up so out of the blue that it felt like something tacked on with a reshoot or something.

Kim Newman, sometime EMPIRE critic and a man who definitely knows his stuff seemed to really like it.

http://johnnyalucard.com/2012/06/28/the-amazing-spider-man-notes/

 

It's interesting, from looking at the reviews, all the negative ones seem to be coming from a people entrenched in LA/Hollywood and the nerd/critic scene. All the positive ones are coming from people mostly in the UK or are part of a broader audience.

 

I think I'm going to give this movie a chance, but there's no way the soundtrack will be better or have the "old fashioned" sense of Comic Book fun and iconic images that Raimi's films had. Certainly, I don't imagine Spider-Man delivering pizza in the sequel for the entire opening 10 minutes. 

You know what I really liked in this movie partly because it was actually different from the other movies?  Flash Thompson has a soul!  The guy's a bully early in the movie, obviously... but after Uncle Ben dies, the guy actually tries to console Peter.  Only to get slammed in the locker...

 

Man, that Peter Parker is a dick!

 

Also, I really liked the way Captain Stacy was used in the movie.  So...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I saw it. Am embargoed. But I didn't hate it.

 

Serious question: how can you be embargoed but the site runs a review?

 

Not speaking for Nick, but I can help illustrate with my own experience. We're sometimes held to local embargoes. For example, I have an agreement with the PR group I work with that all my reviews be held until release day. Because I'm a nice guy, and because I write exactly what they tell me to write (not really), I'm sometimes afforded leeway. 

 

But truthfully, embargoes have a lot to do with the town you're in and the people you're working with. 

OK, thanks. It just seemed odd that Nick's site can run a review but Nick himself can't!

 

~~~

 

From everything I'm reading, this will be a library borrow for me come late fall (or whenever it's released). That's at least $10 saved, so well done everyone.

I'm sure the embargo will lift at some point, but I honor them because CHUD likes to follow the rules even though we only get hurt by doing so. Literally, we are cheated of hits and revenue by our reluctance to be dicks.

All these "It's OK"s, "I thought it would be terrible but it isn't"s and "I didn't hate it"s are really getting me pumped to see it!

 

Yeah, but if you didn't have the access by the studios (which you could lose by breaking the rules) you wouldn't have the content for any hits. You're doing fine!

 

The problem is the broader audience's taste is somewhere between a Big Mac and a spam sandwich.  I'm not saying broad audiences don't know a great film when they see one, they also tend to like just about anything, making the fact that they like this movie virtually meaningless.

That still doesn't explain the positive UK reviews. Like Kim Newman and most of the film magaizes and sites over here. 

Your sarcasm is delicious.

 

Aw. No more over-the-top 30 year old "Parker!" Flash.

 

 

I said this before but Prometheus started at 85% on rotten tomatoes...I just pretty much ignore critics.

 

 

At least I get to see him nekkid on True Blood.

 

Poor kid was that close to Superman.

Kim Newman's not some infallible Godking of reviewing. And even if he were, his review is much more along the lines of "I really like Garfield and Stone" than "this film is a roaring success!!!".
 

Fuck this movie.

 

Somewhere close to the boring-ass ninety minute mark of this interminable 136 minute bad decision (?) I just felt the urge. To get up and be an asshole. To Max Cady this shit. To try to get some sleep. Hell, maybe leave. In the most predictable genre in all of moviemaking, how is it possible that the average moron (me) could be at least five steps ahead of every major plot development?

 

The costume looks great in motion. The action sequences were adequate to good, in some cases better than the Raimi version. Super duper. Also, Spidey gets the idea of his mask from a luchador. It's the single notable contribution in this film from a minority, aside from Irfan Khan's exposition-spouting middle manager who seems to vanish from the second half of the movie. New York City has apparently gotten less diverse since Spider-Man 3.

 

The rest? Maybe if this film had the novelty of being the first big budget Spider-Man film, we could accept waiting about an hour to put him in the suit. But it's not, so don't fuck us around with that Massive Slice Of Ham that is Sally Field, with the funny Emma Stone playing a thankless love interest (who ends up carrying her man's orders, because), and with a moral that doesn't believe in itself.

 

Raimi's movies were corny, but they sincerely believed that Parker could be a good guy, and that his mistakes would bite him in the ass. Here, there are no real consequences for his SuperDickery. Even Uncle Ben's death comes with a side of Old Man Hubris that legit separates Peter from the blame. Peter "goes too far" and bullies Flash Thompson by stealing his basketball, playing Keep Away, then dunking from the foul line, destroying the glass.  Pretty sure that sort of thing gets you scholarships.

 

Maybe it's sleepy-ass Rhys Ifans, who has no real motivation until a goofy eleventh-hour villain plot that involves biochemical weaponry that no scientist would endorse. Though he's also got an evil lizard voice inside him that instructs him on how to be evil, so that's cool. He's also got a "dying" boss with vague needs who teleports around like a supernatural weirdo. To be explained in the sequel, presumably.

 

Making Peter "smarter" and more interested in science works. It doesn't work, though, if you're going to have him poking around OsCorp like a scientist on the Prometheus. It doesn't work when he tries to romance Gwen by going to dinner and blindly mouthing off to her father. It doesn't work when you make him wear a hoodie to beat up every grunge rocker who looks like his Uncle's murderer in town, like this character should ever be driven by bloodlust. It doesn't work when he's a casual asshole vandal who, at one point, develops mastery over his powers in what has to be a scene echoing the dance-rage in both "Flashdances." For the record, the Peter/Flash bullying ratio is something like 3-1 in Peter's favor. Wait, who's the bully here?

 

Taking away the needlessness of a new Spidey origin, this movie's perfunctory pacing, slapdash craft (some 70's Italian-style ADR work here), ersatz characterizations and motivation-less action sequences is probably one of the most useless movies I'll see all year.

Ive often been in the same screening as this dude, I come out write my review and then his review appears later and I wonder if we were actually watching the same film.. guy knows  his shit!