It was much better than the first TASM, but to be fair, this one didn't need to regurgitate the well trodden & now boring origin story like that one did.
It had a good mix of humour & action, plus some sadness thrown in.
Went to see this last night and i thought it was excellent.
Ok there were a lot of cheesy lines but the action was there and enjoyable and at least Spider-man looked to be an important part of the story unlike the dreadful Rami series were I thought whoever wrote it saw Spider-man as an inconvenience rather than the main draw.
The two new films are already far superior to the old ones in my opinion.
just got back from watching it, being the lifelong spiderman fan that i am.
i really enjoyed it - i didn't love it, but i enjoyed it a lot. the opening sequence was fantastic - some genuinely laugh out loud funny lines from Spidey.
The pacing was a bit off in places - it seemed they were trying to go for a more character driven story but then drop in some action sequences along the way. I did think the sequence filmed in Times Square was hugely impressive though - it must have been a nightmare for the traffic in the area
I do personally feel that this series so far is much better than Raimi's though, but that's just me.
I do kind of regret not going to see it in 3D because I suspect it would have looked quite impressive.
Down to 55% rotten now, easily making it the worst critically received Spider-Man film ever. I really hope lessons are learned because I love Garfield in the role and this was such a major disappointment.
Down to 55% rotten now, easily making it the worst critically received Spider-Man film ever. I really hope lessons are learned because I love Garfield in the role and this was such a major disappointment.
It's definitely not the worst Spidey film, so I'm not following the critics on this one. Normal cinema-goers have rated it higher and also on IMDb as well.
It's definitely not the worst Spidey film, so I'm not following the critics on this one. Normal cinema-goers have rated it higher and also on IMDb as well.
I definitely agree with you that's it's not the worst film in the franchise (albeit from just one viewing), but I also agree with the critics that it's not a particularly good film either. I also agree with their near-enough average score of 6/10, and that there's been a large drop in quality from the first Garfield film (which stands at 73%) to the second as well. Even the audience rating is decreasing, it was at 77% positive yesterday.
BTW do general-movie-goers get to choose whether a three star review constitutes a positive or negative appraisal like the professionals do, or is three stars automatically counted as a positive?
tasm 1 was better than raimies first
and this one is slightly better than raimis second for me although i liked raimis second alot.
Surprised that anyone could rate this above Spider-Man 2, widely considered the pinnacle of all the Spider-Man films to date. From Raimi's brilliant Doc Oc "birth" to the superb train battle, this had it all and the FX still stand up today. The new films also sorely miss the J Jonah Jameson character. He's a crucial part of the Spider-Man supporting cast and introducing him to the new films (even they are really all rather redundant..), might see some improvement to the Webb series.
And for the record, Maguire's take on Peter / Spider-Man is, for me at least, preferable to Garfield's whiny portrayal.
I also rate these Spider-Man films above Raimi's. The older films were fun but as a portrayal of the character this is far and above a better version that's closer to the original character.
I also rate these Spider-Man films above Raimi's. The older films were fun but as a portrayal of the character this is far and above a better version that's closer to the original character.
Each to their own I guess. Whilst the character may be truer to the comics (more wise-cracking..), Raimi's a far better film maker and director of course. Marc Webb is incredibly pedestrian and visually, brings nothing to the films. Seriously, with its teen oriented soundtrack, in your face Zimmer score, Twihard target demographic and sub-par villain roster (Electro = Sandman level bad), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the nadir so far. Raimi's Spider-Man 3, though an embarrassment in itself, still tops this one.
It's not just the wise cracking; it's the personality of the Peter Parker character and the greater focus on the interpersonal relationships that make it truer.
In my mind, Raimi's films still had all the interpersonal relationship stuff, but was just more 'adult' about it, with far less moping, mumbling, faux teen angst and giggling etc. And combined with better execution of the villains (bar number 3..), greater and more inventive set-pieces, that's why the original trilogy are head & shoulders above the current iteration.
The original Spider-Man comics had good amount of teenage angst and I don't think it's any less adult than Raimi's. For me the central relationship between Peter and Gwen feels far more real than that between Peter and Mary Jane in Raimi's film.
Regarding the villains, I think Harry Osborn is much better in this version and a better Green Goblin. Doc Ock is a higher tier villain from Spidey's world so it's not too difficult to execute him better than Electro or Rhino; I don't think either of these are worse than Sandman or Venom. Venom is particular was badly executed in Spidey 3.
Saw this on Tuesday and I do agree that there was a certain spark missing - which is ironic really when you consider who the main antagonist was. I have a feeling it'll improve on rewatch - whenever that is - but for now I have no real strong opinions about it. The film wasn't great but by that same token neither was it bad.
Ever wondered why lazy tabloid critics describe these sort of films as 'rollercoaster rides'?
I'll tell you - it's because there's nothing to do except twiddle your thumbs when the ride conks out. You sit there waiting for it to lurch back into life.
And the wholly underwhelming TASM2 conks out frequently, namely when the FX crew have finished for the day. Then we get endless drippy teen romance (and they both look at least 23, btw) or tiresome introductions to various tepid villains. One might take note of the ending, but it's a mechanical move in a mechanical script.
I was fairly charitable towards the first one because at least it wasn't Raimi's Spider-man, one of the most pedantic films I've ever paid to see. But this runs it close. If this is typical summer tentpole fare, then the summer's in a bad way.
Not that it matters. The wretched thing has already notched up $550m with a lot more to come, which should please the suits at Sony (who are once again shaking down Jacko's dead body for loose change I notice). 4.5/10
Comments
im a big fan of making your own mind up but i tend to agree more with imdb ratings than RT personally.
It was much better than the first TASM, but to be fair, this one didn't need to regurgitate the well trodden & now boring origin story like that one did.
It had a good mix of humour & action, plus some sadness thrown in.
Ok there were a lot of cheesy lines but the action was there and enjoyable and at least Spider-man looked to be an important part of the story unlike the dreadful Rami series were I thought whoever wrote it saw Spider-man as an inconvenience rather than the main draw.
The two new films are already far superior to the old ones in my opinion.
i really enjoyed it - i didn't love it, but i enjoyed it a lot. the opening sequence was fantastic - some genuinely laugh out loud funny lines from Spidey.
The pacing was a bit off in places - it seemed they were trying to go for a more character driven story but then drop in some action sequences along the way. I did think the sequence filmed in Times Square was hugely impressive though - it must have been a nightmare for the traffic in the area
I do personally feel that this series so far is much better than Raimi's though, but that's just me.
I do kind of regret not going to see it in 3D because I suspect it would have looked quite impressive.
As another long time Spidey fan I agree and I think most would.
It's definitely not the worst Spidey film, so I'm not following the critics on this one. Normal cinema-goers have rated it higher and also on IMDb as well.
I definitely agree with you that's it's not the worst film in the franchise (albeit from just one viewing), but I also agree with the critics that it's not a particularly good film either. I also agree with their near-enough average score of 6/10, and that there's been a large drop in quality from the first Garfield film (which stands at 73%) to the second as well. Even the audience rating is decreasing, it was at 77% positive yesterday.
BTW do general-movie-goers get to choose whether a three star review constitutes a positive or negative appraisal like the professionals do, or is three stars automatically counted as a positive?
This was a poorly scripted film: Random plot contrivances and a non cohesive narrative made this messy.
Number three (if I get round to watching it) will be a DVD watch.
tasm 1 was better than raimies first
and this one is slightly better than raimis second for me although i liked raimis second alot.
Surprised that anyone could rate this above Spider-Man 2, widely considered the pinnacle of all the Spider-Man films to date. From Raimi's brilliant Doc Oc "birth" to the superb train battle, this had it all and the FX still stand up today. The new films also sorely miss the J Jonah Jameson character. He's a crucial part of the Spider-Man supporting cast and introducing him to the new films (even they are really all rather redundant..), might see some improvement to the Webb series.
And for the record, Maguire's take on Peter / Spider-Man is, for me at least, preferable to Garfield's whiny portrayal.
Each to their own I guess. Whilst the character may be truer to the comics (more wise-cracking..), Raimi's a far better film maker and director of course. Marc Webb is incredibly pedestrian and visually, brings nothing to the films. Seriously, with its teen oriented soundtrack, in your face Zimmer score, Twihard target demographic and sub-par villain roster (Electro = Sandman level bad), The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is the nadir so far. Raimi's Spider-Man 3, though an embarrassment in itself, still tops this one.
It's not just the wise cracking; it's the personality of the Peter Parker character and the greater focus on the interpersonal relationships that make it truer.
Regarding the villains, I think Harry Osborn is much better in this version and a better Green Goblin. Doc Ock is a higher tier villain from Spidey's world so it's not too difficult to execute him better than Electro or Rhino; I don't think either of these are worse than Sandman or Venom. Venom is particular was badly executed in Spidey 3.
I'll tell you - it's because there's nothing to do except twiddle your thumbs when the ride conks out. You sit there waiting for it to lurch back into life.
And the wholly underwhelming TASM2 conks out frequently, namely when the FX crew have finished for the day. Then we get endless drippy teen romance (and they both look at least 23, btw) or tiresome introductions to various tepid villains. One might take note of the ending, but it's a mechanical move in a mechanical script.
I was fairly charitable towards the first one because at least it wasn't Raimi's Spider-man, one of the most pedantic films I've ever paid to see. But this runs it close. If this is typical summer tentpole fare, then the summer's in a bad way.
Not that it matters. The wretched thing has already notched up $550m with a lot more to come, which should please the suits at Sony (who are once again shaking down Jacko's dead body for loose change I notice). 4.5/10
garfields peter parker is less depressive(yes i said LESS depresive) and spidy is the wise cracking spidy i love from comics.
relationship with gwen eclipsed MJ one from original trilogy.
casting wise spiderman,uncle ben,aunt may,harry osbourne,gwen stacey are all better in the reboot.
and personally i think raimis a tad overated(possibly because of evil dead nostalgic fanbase) and webb did a fine job.