Originally posted by Mr Parker
your hysterical.sm 1 and sm2 were MUCH worse.wow you sure have a horrible memory because he did not get bitten by a radioactive spider in sm1 either. everything was wrong with the first two except the special effects. the only good point you made was the wrestling scene not being included and the way uncle ben died but it was much better than the stupid explanation they came up in the first one where he let the guy go because he was not owed the money he was owed,that totally betrayed the origin story just as much as the wresting scene did. oh and here is why this movie is much better than those crapfest man-spider movies that raped to death his character with those moronic organic webshooters.
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f47/t18796.html
oh and dont forget that pathetic story they came up with in sm2 him losing his powers cause he was depressed.How pathetic.
* sorry, i don't want to read your whinin' and bitchin' on that link you gave... and to come up with a long post like this as a response from my few liners, man, you really hate Raimi's SM movies... so basically, you're the one who's hysterical...
* you have a horrible memory because Peter got bitten by a radioactive spider in SM1... for a critic like you to forget this, you're really dumb...
* everything was wrong? first, the organic webbing, i hate it... second, Pete's wise-crackin' swashbucklin' mouth is missing in fights... third, yeah you're right, the time he lost his powers, it's a dumb moment... but to tell you the truth, i have nothing more to point out what's wrong in SM1 and SM2, and it's still much closer to the comcs compared to TAS SM 2012... i'd like to defend SM3 but it really sucked...
Originally posted by DARTH POWER
In SM1 it wasn't a radioactive spider that bit him.
* really? isn't Peter in a field trip to a genetics laboratory? and was bitten by a genetically engineered spider? okay, there's a difference... well, all i'm saying is, SM1 and SM2 are closer to comics than TAS, 616-wise... TAS was good, but i enjoyed watching SM1 & SM2 better...
At no point did I feel that this was even close to "Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man 2." My biggest problem was the fact that this film like such a forced scenario of "updating the story." But by updating the story, they only made it feel not only more commercial, but made Peter Parker extremely unlikable. I never felt like he actually cared about anyone but himself, and other than Uncle Ben's death, no other crappy thing he did had consequence. He even treated Aunt May like garbage (before AND after Ben's death), and then just gets eggs at the end and ignores her like always. There were a lot of moments where all I could think is "...I'm supposed to like this new Peter, right?" Even the point of the movie is guilt, not heroic duty. The Lizard was the most one dimensional villain in the films next to Venom, and yet in the comics he has more depth than any other character. The fight scenes never wowed me, and whenever they did something that was trying to be impressive, all it did was make me go "That won't look good without 3-D" or "That is so spider-esque that it doesn't feel like a teenager anymore."
On the positive side though, Peter trying to go through the day with super strength worked (until the point where they kept going and all his peers saw him do insane feats, AND YET NO ONE QUESTIONED THAT HE MIGHT BE SPIDER-MAN), and up until the shirtless scene that demonstrated almost abusive tendencies, I really liked the Gwen Stacey and Peter Parker romance (though the fact that he had pictures of her everywhere was creepy, and before anyone argues, Tobey's Peter used them in the newspaper and didn't make them his desktop).
Emma Stone did a great job, and some of the side actors were actually really good.
Sadly, the movie disappointed me a lot. I'm amazed at the praise it's getting, and think that a lot of people will change their tune a few years down the road when they watch it again with non-hyped-non-SM3-hated-eyes. 2/5, 4/10
I only saw this the day before yesterday, so It's still pretty fresh in my mind, even if I'm late to the party.
I liked it; I have to admit I really did. I prefer it to Spider-Man 1 and 3, but I still think Spider-Man 2 beats it.
I thought the cast was excellent for the most part. I liked Emma Stone as Gwen a hell of a lot more than I did Kirsten Dunst, and I liked how they worked in the "Gwen's father" angle.
I felt like Peter was more of an ucomfortable teen in this movie than he was in the other ones, and I thought that while Maguire was given better material to work with, Garfield looks the part more than Maguire does.
I feel like they straddled the line between geek and hipster, which I didn't like, but it didn't kill the movie for me.
I really like Rhys Ifans, and have done as far back as Notting Hill. I did feel he was a better villain than say, Venom or Goblin, but he lacked that relatability and vulnerability that we had with Sandman and Doc Ock.
I really liked the fights. I have to admit, I thought those were great. They actually felt to me like that was how Spider-Man would fight, though it doesn't eclipse the various fights with Ock from the second movie for me.
I didn't mind so much that they altered the backstory; I can see why they did it.
One small thing I have to mention was the web swinging. It seemed more realistic to me than it had in the other movies, and those slow-mo shots of Spider-Man in contorted poses as he flew through the air were so reminiscent of comic panels that I'd seen when reading the character.
All in all, a solid 8/10 for me.
Originally posted by -Pr-👆
I only saw this the day before yesterday, so It's still pretty fresh in my mind, even if I'm late to the party.I liked it; I have to admit I really did. I prefer it to Spider-Man 1 and 3, but I still think Spider-Man 2 beats it.
I thought the cast was excellent for the most part. I liked Emma Stone as Gwen a hell of a lot more than I did Kirsten Dunst, and I liked how they worked in the "Gwen's father" angle.
I felt like Peter was more of an ucomfortable teen in this movie than he was in the other ones, and I thought that while Maguire was given better material to work with, Garfield looks the part more than Maguire does.
I feel like they straddled the line between geek and hipster, which I didn't like, but it didn't kill the movie for me.
I really like Rhys Ifans, and have done as far back as Notting Hill. I did feel he was a better villain than say, Venom or Goblin, but he lacked that relatability and vulnerability that we had with Sandman and Doc Ock.
I really liked the fights. I have to admit, I thought those were great. They actually felt to me like that was how Spider-Man would fight, though it doesn't eclipse the various fights with Ock from the second movie for me.
I didn't mind so much that they altered the backstory; I can see why they did it.
One small thing I have to mention was the web swinging. It seemed more realistic to me than it had in the other movies, and those slow-mo shots of Spider-Man in contorted poses as he flew through the air were so reminiscent of comic panels that I'd seen when reading the character.
All in all, a solid 8/10 for me.
Originally posted by Kazenji
Just as i always known about scarcasm and the internet.....just doesn't workdon't know why people continue to bother with it.
Sometimes, but that one was blindingly obvious.
BTW, Laurence Fishburne (aka Morpheus) is playing Daily Planet Editor-in-Chief Perry White in Man of Steel.