The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Rotten Tomatoes score? - Part 4

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]478323[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]478073[/split]

 

[chaseter]

Kinda shocking to see that Sony/Webb beat Spider-Man 3 in terms of bad-ness.

 

[Visualiza]

Kinda shocking to see that Sony/Webb beat Spider-Man 3 in terms of bad-ness.

And resoundingly so.

They're incomparable...these two movies occupy vastly different echelons.

 

[The Joker]

Visualiza, what did you rate the movie out of 10? I assume you're in agreement with the low RT score?

 

[Mysteryman]

Well, we will know by next weekend if the GA thinks it is as bad as SM3.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I've found your thoughts on the film interesting Visualiza and I too want to know what your rating is overall?

 

[InJustice]

Well, we will know by next weekend if the GA thinks it is as bad as SM3.

If they thought Spider-Man 3 was bloated with no real narrative, I can't imagine that they'll open up to The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Unless the Peter-Gwen moments are enough to overcome the movie's flaws.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

If they thought Spider-Man 3 was bloated with no real narrative, I can't imagine that they'll open up to The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Unless the Peter-Gwen moments are enough to overcome the movie's flaws.

Not even close.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I've found your thoughts on the film interesting Visualiza and I too want to know what your rating is overall?

What did you rate ASM1 and ASM2?

 

[Visualiza]

I'm staunchly against pinning a numerical rating down on a movie. I do it...but I really feel like my 8/10 is different from anyone else's 8/10.

However, if you must know, I'd give it a 3, so take that for what it's worth. I will say though, that an arbitrary number can't begin to adequately describe the problems this movie has. I hate to say it, but my jumbled thoughts are a pretty accurate reflection of how all over the place this movie is...I quite literally don't even know where to begin. I'm glad some semblance of value can be taken from what I'm saying, because I really do feel like I'm just ranting here...and I hate ranting.

For some positives (really a justification of why it even gets 3 measly points in the first place):

• I liked the aesthetics. The suit has never looked better. There are minor design cues I prefer from the Raimi movies (the width of the waist belt; the wider stripe on the upper arm)
• The wave-tops of Spider-Man's personality are spot on, it was just too damn excessive. In this respect, Marc Webb reminds me of Snyder in that he just doesn't know when to rein himself in. The expression "Too much of one thing is good for nothing." comes to mind when I think about this.
• Garfield and Stone display solid acting chops in spite of their repetitive scenes. In my opinion, they weren't believable at all in the first movie; their relationship felt forced and out of balance (Peter felt like the only participant to me...Gwen was just...there). This movie definitely corrected that...but didn't go anywhere meaningful with it...just back and forth, back and forth.
• Spidey looks great swinging through the city, but the action and fights themselves are very brief and anticlimactic.

There I go dipping into negative territory again. I'm done for the night...gotta hit the rack and digest this. In a nutshell, I can't recommend this movie to another Spider-Man fan in clear conscience.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What did you rate ASM1 and ASM2?

I'm seeing the sequel on Saturday or Sunday so that rating is pending but I'd probably give the first a 4.5 or a 5 out of 10.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm seeing the sequel on Saturday or Sunday so that rating is pending but I'd probably give the first a 4.5 or a 5 out of 10.

I see.

I look forward to seeing if you like the sequel more or less than the first one.

 

[Shikamaru]

It's really confusing whenever I see someone give a rating. Everyone has their own different means of measuring a film's quality. A 5/10 score would be an average to someone and a disaster to someone else. That's why I think everyone should at first establish what each number on the scale means.

I rank my films on the following scale.

Great - 5/5. These are the crown jewels of the genre. The ones that execute everything (or almost everything) perfectly spot on. They are the best the genre has to offer and the films other directors/studios should take notes from.

Good - 4/5. There are a lot of stuff that are very well done and impressive, but the film lacks in certain specific areas and that hurts it overall. Those few areas being fixed is what would make it a great movie.

Average/ok - 3/5. Passable. Good enough to enjoy them, but there isn't much there. It's alright.

Bad - 2/5. They're poorly done. Overall, not that good.

Horrible - 1/5. The polar opposite to the "greats". They are the worst the genre has to offer. They're to be held as examples for what a film should never do.

A .5 decimals means I'm conflicted on which rank the film stands. But I usually try to stay away from decimals.

I'd give both Spider-Man 2 and The Amazing Spider-Man a "good" (4/5). Spider-Man 1 would get a 3/5. Then Spider-Man 3 gets a 2/5.

 

[Spooderman]

People should specify if 5/10 is average or 7/10 is average in their review

 

[Spider-Fan]

It's really confusing whenever I see someone give a rating. Everyone has their own different means of measuring a film's quality. A 5/10 score would be an average to someone and a disaster to someone else. That's why I think everyone should at first establish what each number on the scale means.

I rank my films on the following scale.

Great - 5/5. These are the crown jewels of the genre. The ones that execute everything (or almost everything) perfectly spot on. They are the best the genre has to offer and the films other directors/studios should take notes from.

Good - 4/5. There are a lot of stuff that are very well done and impressive, but the film lacks in certain specific areas and that hurts it overall. Those few areas being fixed is what would make it a great movie.

Average/ok - 3/5. Passable. Good enough to enjoy them, but there isn't much there. It's alright.

Bad - 2/5. They're poorly done. Overall, not that good.

Horrible - 1/5. The polar opposite to the "greats". They are the worst the genre has to offer. They're to be held as examples for what a film should never do.

I try to stay away from decimals.

I'd give both Spider-Man 2 and The Amazing Spider-Man a "good" (4/5). Spider-Man 1 would get a 3/5. Then Spider-Man 3 gets a 2/5.

This is my system. When I give 4, I don't mean it was near perfect. I mean, it was quite good, but still has flaws. 3 is basically it was okay. 2 means it was bad, but it had good elements. 5's and 1's are obvious.

 

[ParkerPeters]

I thought it was fantastic! It is the second best in the franchise IMO. I can't understand ANY of the hate. It feels as if people are ****ting on Raimi Spider-Man 2...

 

[MahvelBaby!]

Saw the film tonight and I vehemently disagree with the rt, this may be this year's mos, now I didn't like mos but I understood why most did , it's just one of those movies that can go either way for some people. I feel that this movie deserves a high 70's after seeing it at least.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

5 out of 10 is a bad score for me.

If I had to rate TASM on the 5/5 scale I'd probably give it a 2 and half out of 5 on a good day. I'm sorry but I need halves.

I'm glad you guys above me liked the film.

 

[jmc]

My system tends to fluctuate, sometimes it depends on what the type of movie is and what the goal of said movie is. For instance I'm a lot more lenient on a film if early on it shows it's not taking itself too seriously, if it has flaws I tend to overlook them a lot more in that context. But if a film is trying to take itself seriously I won't overlook the flaws as easily. For me anyway the worst films to give a rating to are films that don't do a hell of a lot and lack ambition, just middle of the road movies that are inoffensive and plod along from beginning to end. I actually hate those type of movies more than bad movies because more often than not it feels like I've wasted my time.

 

[Spider-Fan]

5 out of 10 is a bad score for me.

If I had to rate TASM on the 5/5 scale I'd probably give it a 2 and half out of 5 on a good day. I'm sorry but I need halfs.

I use halves, also. But, I don't use any other decimals. I don't like the 10 point scale, myself.

 

[IncognitoWalrus]

I never really understood why some people chose the 4 star system over the 5 star system.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I use halves, also. But, I don't use any other decimals. I don't like the 10 point scale, myself.

I've always used the 10 point scale but nothing wrong with you not caring for it of course.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I've always used the 10 point scale but nothing wrong with you not caring for it of course.

I just find with a 10 pt scale, most people use 7s and such that seem higher than they really are, and the system has more variety from person to person. So, one person's 7 might be someone else's 5. Too much wiggle room. I feel a 5 point scale has less wiggle room like that. Just feel it has more consistancy.

 

[Shikamaru]

This is my system. When I give 4, I don't mean it was near perfect. I mean, it was quite good, but still has flaws. 3 is basically it was okay. 2 means it was bad, but it had good elements. 5's and 1's are obvious.

I just find with a 10 pt scale, most people use 7s and such that seem higher than they really are, and the system has more variety from person to person. So, one person's 7 might be someone else's 5. Too much wiggle room. I feel a 5 point scale has less wiggle room like that. Just feel it has more consistancy.

I like the way you think . We also agree on 5 MCU film ratings then .