The new Spider-man was so mediocre. Painting by numbers filmmaking of the worst kind. So cynical. There's a reason a small time character director was hired to replace the visionary! Sony want to bash out as many Spideys as they physically can. The 3D didn't help at all. The effects were the only improvement on Raimi's, but the 3D darkened it so much, it was for nothing!
Whoa really?! I thought each raimi film was really disappointing. As a huge spiderman fan growing up, this reboot stayed a lot truer to the feel and character of spiderman and his backstory. Maybe it's because I saw it in 2d but it was a definite improvement on the flimsy performances of Tobey Maguire and co. Also very harsh to Marc Webb, I'm guessing you havent seen 500 days of summer? The least "painting by numbers" rom com I've seen. Very confused since by spiderman 3 it had become very much a painting by numbers series.
I'm not going to hijack this thread with another Spidey rant! I did see 500 Days with a team of film reviewers though. Widely regarded as the most boring night at the movies we'd collectively had! Not to say Webb is rubbish - his character work in Spdey is pretty good. Too many other glaring flaws though.
PS Spidey 3 was awful, but that was Sony's insistence on including Venom against Raimi's wishes that really messed it up, and highlights why they rebooted cast and crew. Raimi wouldn't stand for it again.
I'm not going to hijack this thread with another Spidey rant! I did see 500 Days with a team of film reviewers though. Widely regarded as the most boring night at the movies we'd collectively had! Not to say Webb is rubbish - his character work in Spdey is pretty good. Too many other glaring flaws though.
PS Spidey 3 was awful, but that was Sony's insistence on including Venom against Raimi's wishes that really messed it up, and highlights why they rebooted cast and crew. Raimi wouldn't stand for it again.
Venom is the best spidey villain, I can see why they insisted, thought spiderman 3 was bad because there wasnt enough venom. Spiderman 1 and 2 aren't very good films. Watch them again, they're not that great. I greatly prefer the amazing spiderman. I liked all the little references that were setting it up for a longer series. When you're making a major motion picture blockbuster its part of the process you get the studio sticking their noses in and meddling, it comes with the territory. Overall The Amazing Spiderman has got slightly better reviews than the first spiderman film anyway.
Venom is the best spidey villain, I can see why they insisted, thought spiderman 3 was bad because there wasnt enough venom. Spiderman 1 and 2 aren't very good films. Watch them again, they're not that great. I greatly prefer the amazing spiderman. I liked all the little references that were setting it up for a longer series. When you're making a major motion picture blockbuster its part of the process you get the studio sticking their noses in and meddling, it comes with the territory. Overall The Amazing Spiderman has got slightly better reviews than the first spiderman film anyway.
Venom in of itself wasn't the problem, it was Raimi wanting to use two other villains and the studio insisting he introduce a third. Spider-Man 2 is an exceptionally good film, first time I've heard anyone say it sucked!! But I think you've missed a point here - studio interference is nothing new, but the scale of it is what did for Raimi, who felt his box office takes should give him more leeway, as happened with Nolan. Particularly compared to a player like Webb who'd do exactly as he was told.
As for the new version having better reviews - not by my count. Metacritic has the 2002 version up by 7% and Rotten Tomatoes has it up by 16%. Not sure where you're getting your facts from Kent, but I'd send them back and ask for a refund if I were you!
The new Spider-man was so mediocre. Painting by numbers filmmaking of the worst kind. So cynical. There's a reason a small time character director was hired to replace the visionary! Sony want to bash out as many Spideys as they physically can. The 3D didn't help at all. The effects were the only improvement on Raimi's, but the 3D darkened it so much, it was for nothing!
Whoa really?! I thought each raimi film was really disappointing. As a huge spiderman fan growing up, this reboot stayed a lot truer to the feel and character of spiderman and his backstory. Maybe it's because I saw it in 2d but it was a definite improvement on the flimsy performances of Tobey Maguire and co. Also very harsh to Marc Webb, I'm guessing you havent seen 500 days of summer? The least "painting by numbers" rom com I've seen. Very confused since by spiderman 3 it had become very much a painting by numbers series.
Well I thought Toby maguire was a poor choice for spiderman and the performance poorly directed but what do I know. IMO Garfield is a far better choice, the insecurity covered by a cocky smokescreen of arrogance works really well whereas maguire just acted like an unusual (!)
I thought Emma stone grew into her performance as the leading lady (Dunst as Mary Jane was fine though IMO).
500 days of summer was very good and certainly not paint by numbers (although I did think the messages were mixed).
Comments
http://skymovies.sky.com/the-amazing-spider-man/review
PS Spidey 3 was awful, but that was Sony's insistence on including Venom against Raimi's wishes that really messed it up, and highlights why they rebooted cast and crew. Raimi wouldn't stand for it again.
As for the new version having better reviews - not by my count. Metacritic has the 2002 version up by 7% and Rotten Tomatoes has it up by 16%. Not sure where you're getting your facts from Kent, but I'd send them back and ask for a refund if I were you!
I thought Emma stone grew into her performance as the leading lady (Dunst as Mary Jane was fine though IMO).
500 days of summer was very good and certainly not paint by numbers (although I did think the messages were mixed).