The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - User Review Thread! - SPOILERS! - Part 5

[GremlinZilla89]

One guy on a message board? More like the worst box office results in franchise history, "eh" audience reactions and a rotten on rotten tomatoes. It's not just me that's for damn sure lol and to say that everything has been smooth sailing for this film just because YOU liked it, well, the irony is palpable then isn't it?

Worst BO results? It took in 30 mill more than the first film

Eh audience reactions? The majority of audiences liked it. And who gives a flying f--k about critic reviews?

 

[KillerMcQueen]

Worst BO results? It took in 30 mill more than the first film

Eh audience reactions? The majority of audiences liked it. And who gives a flying f--k about critic reviews?

Joe_Kickass is literally incapable of being positive.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Worst BO results? It took in 30 mill more than the first film

Eh audience reactions? The majority of audiences liked it. And who gives a flying f--k about critic reviews?

Domestically? Yes. And the audience reactions, in terms of CBMs, is pretty poor at this point. This movie isn't doing so hot, plan and simple, no point in pretending otherwise.

Nothing about it thus far has been impressive, nothing about thus far and shown it to be anything above being just another CBM in a market that's becoming more and more saturated with CBMs.

You can like/love the film all you want, it's your opinion, it's your to uphold, but that doesn't change the situation. I've seen the movie, I can see that everything is aligning to support my viewpoint, that this movie is a handful of good ideas that was smothered with poor execution and questionable decisions.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Joe_Kickass is literally incapable of being positive.

I've defended this movie since it was in preproduction. Things leading up to it made me question my expectations, but it still remained my most anticipated movie of the year and it winded up disappointing me. I have no reason to feel positive or hold optimism for this film.

 

[AnneFan]

In the poll thread, 8 and 9/10 are fighting it out with 32 votes apiece.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Domestically? Yes. And the audience reactions, in terms of CBMs, is pretty poor at this point. This movie isn't doing so hot, plan and simple, no point in pretending otherwise.

Nothing about it thus far has been impressive, nothing about thus far and shown it to be anything above being just another CBM in a market that's becoming more and more saturated with CBMs.

You can like/love the film all you want, it's your opinion, it's your to uphold, but that doesn't change the situation. I've seen the movie, I can see that everything is aligning to support my viewpoint, that this movie is a handful of good ideas that was smothered with poor execution and questionable decisions.

I'm not fighting anything. You're making everything seem worse than it is. You act like I'm ignoring facts when you are the one ignoring facts. Critically, the film withered. I won't deny that, but the majority of the audience is enjoying it. You can't pretend that's not true. Just because the film is more divisive among fans doesn't make it a failure.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

I'm not fighting anything. You're making everything seem worse than it is. You act like I'm ignoring facts when you are the one ignoring facts. Critically, the film withered. I won't deny that, but the majority of the audience is enjoying it. You can't pretend that's not true. Just because the film is more divisive among fans doesn't make it a failure.

It's a failure in that it has absolutely no excuse as to why it's being received the way it is and why it has a lower opening than a Captain America movie. A failure can be mediocre, it doesn't have to be something terrible. In Sony's eyes the movie thus far has probably been at least a disappointment. Successes don't make you a little hot under the collar.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

It's a failure in that it has absolutely no excuse as to why it's being received the way it is and why it has a lower opening than a Captain America movie. A failure can be mediocre, it doesn't have to be something terrible. In Sony's eyes the movie thus far has probably been at least a disappointment. Successes don't make you a little hot under the collar.

So, critical response is the only thing that matters?

I guess Blade Runner, Fight Club, Predator, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas etc...are all bad films for having bad to mixed reviews when they came out.
I'm not saying that TASM2 is on the same level as some of these films, but you can't claim a film is a failure like it's fact because critics weren't kind to it. It's the audience that matters. The audience gives it a B+/75% respectively from two of the more popular rating sites. Hardly a disappointment.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

A B+ Cinemascore is less than optimal for a movie like this. It just is.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

A B+ Cinemascore is less than optimal for a movie like this. It just is.

I don't see how.

 

[Eddie]

I don't see how.

Every major media outlet I've seen discuss this topic has said that B+ is low for this sort of film on Cinemascore. If you go to their site, not a single movie on the front page has a lower score than C. Plenty of movies have A- or higher. Some movies that heavily under performed and didn't seem to find their audience managed to pull in a B.

 

[Flint Marko]

An A on cinemascore is very attainable for any halfway decent comic book movie.
I enjoyed it but it was disappointing overall, I appreciate the effort and the movie clearly had heart. It was just to ambitious for it's own good.
I can't help but wonder if their recent focus on "world-building" could have been what threw a wrench in the system.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

Then it's Webb's fault for agreeing with and implementing suggestions that run counter to the whole "invisible" idea.

Tbh. That's not what being invisible is. Yes he stands out because he's different however that doesn't mean people don't see him literally. Your taking invisible out of context. It's a descriptive word but that's not the only thing that describes Max as a character in this film. I think you take invisible literally. No one is truly invisible.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

An A on cinemascore is very attainable for any halfway decent comic book movie.
I enjoyed it but it was disappointing overall, I appreciate the effort and the movie clearly had heart. It was just to ambitious for it's own good.
I can't help but wonder if their recent focus on "world-building" could have been what threw a wrench in the system.

It's loads better than one villain per movie and never expanding the Spider-man universe behind MJ and Peter.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's loads better than one villain per movie and never expanding the Spider-man universe behind MJ and Peter.

Debatable. They definitely went overboard with it. Harry and Electro were two very weak villains overall, mostly because the movie didn't have time to really flesh them out.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

Debatable. They definitely went overboard with it. Harry and Electro were two very weak villains overall, mostly because the movie didn't have time to really flesh them out.

I thought Harry was more fleshed out than Electro. It almost seems like if they focused to much attention on them both then people would say it's SM3 all over again.

How could have Harry been fleshed out more? He was dying and he came back because his own father was dying.

Electro was the weaker villain mentally but not physically. He's extremely powerful. I do think the movie could have benefited more by getting rid of some of his goofy look and showing more scenes of his abuse as a kid up till now and his various social issues. Similar to the comic were Spiderman fights him in the Electro-proof suit. And they could have made his motivations in the beginning a little more clear. However...as I think about another huge part of Electro's character is he's weak minded and easily manipulated. They got that down pact. Only recently did Electro start to get a back bone and become more of threat to Spidey but he still is usually defeated.

In they bring him back in the Sinister six I think it would be smart to go into deeper detail about his past etc.

 

[The Joker]

It's loads better than one villain per movie and never expanding the Spider-man universe behind MJ and Peter.

I fail to see how that is loads better. The expansion of this universe is done at the expense of well fleshed out characters and a good story. Because of the needless urge to "expand" the universe so they can do spin off movies, these movies suffer from wafer thin characters, rushed plots and character arcs, which results in a very weak movie, and an even worse Spider-Man movie.

It's why TASM, as well as Raimi's first two movies naturally are better than this turgid mess of a movie.

 

[InJustice]

It's loads better than one villain per movie and never expanding the Spider-man universe behind MJ and Peter.

"Loads better" is debatable. If it's going to be like ASM2, or IM2, where the universe creation and shoehorning more than a villain comes at the cost of story and character development, then I'd rather not see any universe creation at all. If it's going to be like The Dark Knight, where the villains serve a purpose and it actually makes sense in the narrative, then sure...by all means do it.

 

[Flint Marko]

I thought Harry was more fleshed out than Electro. It almost seems like if they focused to much attention on them both then people would say it's SM3 all over again.

If they spent more time with both villains it would have made the character's more interesting and it would have greatly improved the film. That much is undeniable.

How could have Harry been fleshed out more? He was dying and he came back because his own father was dying.

He came out of nowhere, he and Peter shared some moments talking about a past we never saw or knew about, and then he became evil and wanted to kill Spider-man. Not a particularly compelling arc.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

Absolutely not. The expansion of this universe is done at the expense of well fleshed out characters and a good story. Because of the needless urge to "expand" the universe so they can do spin off movies, these movies suffer from wafer thin characters, rushed plots and character arcs, which results in a very weak movie, and an even worse Spider-Man movie.

It's why TASM, as well as Raimi's first two movies naturally are better than this turgid mess of a movie.

In your opinion.

Peter isn't well fleshed out? Gwen wasn't? Aunt May wasn't? Omg...Harry wasn't well fleshed out even though it's JUST his introduction? It's hilarious how some of you throw around terms like that without actually being trained in the profession itself.

Harry has an objective and a motivation. What more reason did he need???? Having a terminal disease isn't fleshed out? And tbh the whole Sin Six thing is tired. The movie had it's own story. Most of the Sin Six stuff happened at the END of the film. The electro stuff was for this movie. The Harry story and introducing Oscorp were for this particular movie . They are better to you. One person. Don't state your opinion as fact. Btw....SM1 and SM2 came out years ago. Raimi's take was his own. This is a new generation. New movies...new Spider-man. Most people liked the film a lot. Your not the majority like you think you are.

 

[Flint Marko]

Most people liked the film a lot. Your not the majority like you think you are.

What are you basing this on exactly?

 

[kbrooksgohan]

"Loads better" is debatable. If it's going to be like ASM2, or IM2, where the universe creation and shoehorning more than a villain comes at the cost of story and character development, then I'd rather not see any universe creation at all. If it's going to be like The Dark Knight, where the villains serve a purpose and it actually makes sense in the narrative, then sure...by all means do it.

This movie was not IM2 by a long shot. IM2 had two villains and they were miss poor and most of the movie was all action and a bunch of improvised dialogue. They did it for the first movie and it worked and they tried to repeat the same thing and it wasn't successful.

If they spent more time with both villains it would have made the character's more interesting and it would have greatly improved the film. That much is undeniable.


He came out of nowhere, he and Peter shared some moments talking about a past we never saw or knew about, and then he became evil and wanted to kill Spider-man. Not a particularly compelling arc.

He didn't come out of no where. He came back because his father was dying. Big difference. And he never became evil. In fact most villains don't become evil. Because of his circumstances he took the necessary steps to insure his survival. Btw most villains don't view themselves as villains.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

What are you basing this on exactly?

Do you honestly think that the small amount of fans who didn't like the movie are in the majority? And do you honestly think the RT consensus accounts for the millions of regular people who are die-hard fans who just go the movies to be entertained?

Rt doesn't speak for them and neither does this website or any one person who didn't like the film. Sure it had it's flaw but I don't think those flaws made the movie the "mess" that some users on this forum claim it is.

 

[Flint Marko]

This movie was not IM2 by a long shot. IM2 had two villains and they were miss poor and most of the movie was all action and a bunch of improvised dialogue. They did it for the first movie and it worked and they tried to repeat the same thing and it wasn't successful.

You kind of just described how ASM2 was to a lot of us.

He didn't come out of no where. He came back because his father was dying. Big difference. And he never became evil. In fact most villains don't become evil. Because of his circumstances he took the necessary steps to insure his survival. Btw most villains don't view themselves as villains.

In terms of the story, he came out of nowhere. That is what I meant by that. He shows up, we're supposed to care about him because of this big implied connection to Peter that we never got to see or experience, and then he becomes evil.
Btw I'm aware most villains don't view themselves as evil but that's beside the point. Given his actions in the movie and his motives, I don't think it's a far cry to say he "turned evil".
It's fine you really enjoyed the movie, I did as well, but surely you can see how some people took issue with certain aspects of it.

 

[The Joker]

In your opinion.

In many people's opinions. In fact going by the hundreds of reviews on RT alone, including many of the "positive" ones, it's the consensus.

Peter isn't well fleshed out? Gwen wasn't? Aunt May wasn't?

They're carry over characters from the first movie. I'm talking about all the new characters that were introduced in this one. The ones it was this movie's job to flesh out.

Omg...Harry wasn't well fleshed out even though it's JUST his introduction? It's hilarious how some of you throw around terms like that without actually being trained in the profession itself.

I don't need to be trained in any profession to know an under developed character when I see one. LOL. What kind of movie snobbery is that?

Harry has an objective and a motivation.

So did Venom in Spider-Man 3.

What more reason did he need???? Having a terminal disease isn't fleshed out? And tbh the whole Sin Six thing is tired. The movie had it's own story. Most of the Sin Six stuff happened at the END of the film. The electro stuff was for this movie. The Harry story and introducing Oscorp were for this particular movie

No, having a terminal disease is not fleshed out. Just slapping a genetic condition on him out of the clear blue sky, and then sending him on a hunt to get Spider-Man's blood is not a fleshed out arc.

The movie breaks it's back to cram in all these villains so they'll be good to go for the Sinister Six by the end of the movie. Harry's Goblin and Rhino especially are literally dropped in at the end for it. While Electro spends most of the movie in jail listening to Dr. Kafka and his classical music!

Rushed, sloppy, under developed. Uninteresting.

They are better to you. One person.

Yeah I'm sure I am the only person on earth who feels this way.

Don't state your opinion as fact.

What you mean like you did: "It's loads better than one villain per movie and never expanding the Spider-man universe behind MJ and Peter."

Btw....SM1 and SM2 came out years ago.

So did The Godfather. So what?

Raimi's take was his own. This is a new generation. New movies...new Spider-man.

Yeah....and?

Most people liked the film a lot. Your not the majority like you think you are.

I never said people didn't like the movie (though it's not a majority of people loving it or thinking it's the best. It's the most polarizing Spider-Man movie by far dividing fans between like and dislike). I said it's inferior to the other Spider-Man movies.