The Amazing Spider-Man (07/03/2012)

post #451 of 667

7/2/12 at 9:31pm

hoozah

Posts: 2,899
Joined: 12/2010
Select All Posts By This User

Is it done well in 3D? I'm going to see it tomorrow, and my theater only seems to play blockbusters in 3D.

Reply

post #452 of 667

7/2/12 at 10:07pm

Fang66

Posts: 8,516
Joined: 4/2009
Location: Nihon
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoozah

Is it done well in 3D? I'm going to see it tomorrow, and my theater only seems to play blockbusters in 3D.

Mary Jane and Gwen at the same time in 3D? Yeah I hope it's well done.

Reply

post #453 of 667

7/3/12 at 9:54am

Thread Starter

RFX45

Posts: 10,825
Joined: 8/2006
Select All Posts By This User

Movie was pretty good, despite the origins pretty much being exactly the same, it didn’t bore nor did it feel unnecessary. It’s was a good reboot on the origins.

Film felt a bit slow in the beginning but again never boring, just right. There were cheesy parts but overall the film was good. I’d rank it right there with SM1, slightly below SM2 and well above SM3. The first half did feel more like a love story with a bit of Spiderman origins around it but it worked for me, others might hate it. Not sure how it'll hold up in time though.

Acting was superb, Garfield was still difficult to be taken as a nerd just by his looks but his acting chops far exceeds Tobeys. His awkward mannerisms were also pretty good.

Emma Stone simply looked great on the big screen and she is just miles away from Dunst in both looks and skill. Just is also very alluring and played the part well.

Action sequences are perhaps the best out of all the Spiderman franchise. It was fast and quick paced and it really showed Spidey as very acrobatic and agile, it is the best interpretation of how Spidey might actually fight.

Costume looked much better in action and the light-up spider web wasn’t noticeable in the film and I almost didn’t notice the silver shoes either.

The Lizard looked much better on-screen too, the no-snout wasn’t as bad when he’s moving. It did look a bit fake once they do a close-up but it wasn’t bad at all. I definitely expected worse.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Movies plot points were pretty similar to SM1 with a few changes like his parents being there in the beginning and Stacy pretty much falling in-love with him w/o trying much. Connors was pretty much Osborne in this film (failing in science so he experiments on himself and even has a schizo moment here and there).

I didn’t like how cheesy it got in the end where the NYers helped Spidey by lining up all the cranes. Ugh.

I also hated how vague who the guy in the mid-credits scene too, I have no freaking idea who it is. It would have been nice to make it more distinguishable (like Fury or Thanos) because if no one knows who it is, then it just shows that there is a sequel (which we all knew already) and that there is more to his parents (which was pretty obvious).

No "with great power comes great responsibility" phrase is kind of disappointing. It's cheesy by now but I wouldn't have minded hearing it.

Stay for the mid-credit scene and then leave, there is nothing after the actual credit.

Reply

post #454 of 667

7/3/12 at 11:32am

dcg

Posts: 3,433
Joined: 11/2007
Location: Philly
Select All Posts By This User

Saw it last night. Exceedingly similar to SM1 plot-wise, but IMO much more enjoyable since Garfield >>>> Maguire and Stone >>>> Dunst. Agree with everything RFX said in his spoiler above.

Reply

post #455 of 667

7/3/12 at 7:30pm

Rambo

Posts: 27,312
Joined: 10/2007
Location: I'M IN MIAMI, BITCH
Select All Posts By This User

Saw it in IMAX 3D tonight. Highly enjoyable. Definitely blows the originals out of the water. Which isn't hard, since they sucked. I have a few problems with the script and casting (still think they could have done better than Garfield. Not one single smart ass quip the whole movie! COME ON!!) but this was a markedly better effort. I recommend seeing it on the big screen in 3D. I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much in 2D.

Reply

post #456 of 667

7/3/12 at 8:02pm

Thread Starter

RFX45

Posts: 10,825
Joined: 8/2006
Select All Posts By This User

You liked it?

HOLY HELL!!!!

Reply

post #457 of 667

7/3/12 at 8:48pm

Rambo

Posts: 27,312
Joined: 10/2007
Location: I'M IN MIAMI, BITCH
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFX45

You liked it?
HOLY HELL!!!!

I was entertained. I still cannot fathom why they can't read a comic and realize Peter is a smart ass nerd and get someone who can do sarcasm! Garfield was a bit morose in certain spots and all the lip quivering was a bit much. Emma Stone is so much better than Kiersten Dunst that its not even fair to compare them.

Reply

post #458 of 667

7/3/12 at 8:56pm

kashmir

Posts: 304
Joined: 10/2010
Select All Posts By This User

NYC looks really good in this movie save for that one scene in RFX's spoiler above.

Reply

post #459 of 667

7/3/12 at 8:57pm

deadly7

Posts: 3,075
Joined: 7/2010
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo

Saw it in IMAX 3D tonight. Highly enjoyable. Definitely blows the originals out of the water. Which isn't hard, since they sucked. I have a few problems with the script and casting (still think they could have done better than Garfield. Not one single smart ass quip the whole movie! COME ON!!) but this was a markedly better effort. I recommend seeing it on the big screen in 3D. I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much in 2D.

I am now questioning your judgement, especially on the 3D part. Spiderman 1 kickstarted the modern era of blockbuster superhero films, and it still stands the test of time (hell, I watched it a couple weekends ago). Spiderman 2 was way better acted, more interesting villain, etc. Sp3 I agree sucked hard.

Reply

post #460 of 667

7/3/12 at 9:06pm

Thread Starter

RFX45

Posts: 10,825
Joined: 8/2006
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadly7

I am now questioning your judgement,

It's Rambo... really nothing much to be said.

Reply

post #461 of 667

7/3/12 at 9:11pm

Rambo

Posts: 27,312
Joined: 10/2007
Location: I'M IN MIAMI, BITCH
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadly7

I am now questioning your judgement, especially on the 3D part. Spiderman 1 kickstarted the modern era of blockbuster superhero films, and it still stands the test of time (hell, I watched it a couple weekends ago). Spiderman 2 was way better acted, more interesting villain, etc. Sp3 I agree sucked hard.

Excuse me, sir, but Tobey McGwire was the worst thing ever to happen to comic book movies. Worse than Ang Lee. Worse than Thomas Jane. Even worse than Batman & Robin! (that's right, I said it) And that jackoff Sam Rami didn't help either. No, those movies should be burned and forgotten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RFX45

It's Rambo... really nothing much to be said.

And don't you forget it!

Reply

post #462 of 667

7/3/12 at 9:40pm

Fang66

Posts: 8,516
Joined: 4/2009
Location: Nihon
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambo

Excuse me, sir, but Tobey McGwire was the worst thing ever to happen to comic book movies. Worse than Ang Lee. Worse than Thomas Jane. Even worse than Batman & Robin! (that's right, I said it) And that jackoff Sam Rami didn't help either. No, those movies should be burned and forgotten.
And don't you forget it!

Yes Tobey McGwire is incredibly awful, but I find it hard to believe that he even approaches the awfulness of Jack Nicholson's Joker. (have not seen Batman & Robin)

Reply

post #463 of 667

7/3/12 at 9:45pm

El Argentino

Posts: 4,863
Joined: 6/2010
Location: Way out in Ol' Nevada
Select All Posts By This User

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fang66

Yes Tobey McGwire is incredibly awful, but I find it hard to believe that he even approaches the awfulness of Jack Nicholson's Joker. (have not seen Batman & Robin)