The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man (First Reactions: Critics, Fans) (Spoiler Alert) - - - - Part 13

[DoomsdayApex]

Well to you it is a C+, but opinions overall have been mixed.

Exactly. Mixed reviews doesn't equal overwhelmingly positive reviews. That's my point.

 

[Mr.?]

Man I dont get why some people in here are so obsessed with the reviews. Go see it for yourself. If you like it that's all that matters.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Exactly. Mixed reviews doesn't equal overwhelmingly positive reviews. That's my point.

And just because a movie doesn't get overwhelmingly positive reviews doesn't mean it's not good. Batman 89 has a 70% on RT and a lower average, and Batman Returns is at a 79%. Guess those are average films too.
Forrest Gump has a 71% too, so I guess that's an average movie.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Exactly. Mixed reviews doesn't equal overwhelmingly positive reviews. That's my point.

Its still mostly positive reviews, some of which are 4/4 or 4/5 ratings.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Its still mostly positive reviews, some of which are 4/4 or 4/5 ratings.

A lot of which lol

 

[Picard Sisko]

And just because a movie doesn't get overwhelmingly positive reviews doesn't mean it's not good. Batman 89 has a 70% on RT and a lower average, and Batman Returns is at a 79%. Guess those are average films too.
Forrest Gump has a 71% too, so I guess that's an average movie.

Forrest Gump is a fantastic film, and personally I think that deserves at least a 95% on RT. That's just my opinion though.

 

[Liam_H]

How is their scoring "Highly unstable and inconsistent"?
They base their averages on the scores given by the reviews, then average them together, like RT does with it's average score. And again that's just your opinion, a lot of people disagree though.

Because they base it on a weighted average. Meaning according to them some people have a more valued opinion.

Also you shouldn't cite movies on RT that are that old because they have such a small sample size.

 

[Jexx]

Spider-Man wins the key to the city.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

How is their scoring "Highly unstable and inconsistent"?
They base their averages on the scores given by the reviews, then average them together, like RT does with it's average score. And again that's just your opinion, a lot of people disagree though.

Yes, here. That's a different story. Out there though, the film is getting a bunch of 'mehs', 'decent' and 'it's okay' reviews.

Metacritic's scores suffer from explosive decompression if a 'top' critic sends a single negative review is set loose.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Yes, here. That's a different story. Out there though, the film is getting a bunch of 'mehs', 'decent' and 'it's okay' reviews.

Metacritic's scores suffer from explosive decompression if a 'top' critic sends a single negative review is set loose.

There are many reviews that call the movie "amazing" and are not being counted. Sigh.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Yes, here. That's a different story. Out there though, the film is getting a bunch of 'mehs', 'decent' and 'it's okay' reviews.

Metacritic's scores suffer from explosive decompression if a 'top' critic sends a single negative review is set loose.

But this movie was going to get that anyway because it tells the origin story.
It isn't necessarily being reviewed on it's own merits. And you can't really 100% trust outside reviews because a lot of people just make things up because they're angry that this movie is a reboot.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Because they base it on a weighted average. Meaning according to them some people have a more valued opinion.

Also you shouldn't cite movies on RT that are that old because they have such a small sample size.

But movies like Forrest Gump have around 40 reviews, and when Spider-Man had that many, it was in the 70s as well.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

And just because a movie doesn't get overwhelmingly positive reviews doesn't mean it's not good. Batman 89 has a 70% on RT and a lower average, and Batman Returns is at a 79%. Guess those are average films too.
Forrest Gump has a 71% too, so I guess that's an average movie.

Hey, deal with it. I sure as hell didn't see anything special about TASM, and RT's score is representing that for me. I don't always agree with critic-based sites but RT is far more reliable than sites like Metacritic and Twitter/Facebook.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

Hey, deal with it. I sure as hell didn't see anything special about TASM, and RT's score is representing that for me. I don't always agree with critic-based sites but RT is far more reliable than sites like Metacritic and Twitter/Facebook.

Hey, it's your opinion, I don't have any problem with it.

 

[Liam_H]

But movies like Forrest Gump have around 40 reviews, and when Spider-Man had that many, it was in the 70s as well.

So what's your point?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Hey, deal with it. I sure as hell didn't see anything special about TASM, and RT's score is representing that for me. I don't always agree with critic-based sites but RT is far more reliable than sites like Metacritic and Twitter/Facebook.

Your opinion, and I respect that. I totally disagree with you though lol but w/e.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

There are many reviews that call the movie "amazing" and are not being counted. Sigh.

Ummm, yes there have been. Let's not play this ridiculous game. RT and Metacritic include 'gushing' reviews as well.

But this movie was going to get that anyway because it tells the origin story.
It isn't necessarily being reviewed on it's own merits. And you can't really 100% trust outside reviews because a lot of people just make things up because they're angry that this movie is a reboot.

You're right, I don't. I trust my opinion the most, and I found TASM to be that -- average; disappointing.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Your opinion, and I respect that. I totally disagree with you though lol but w/e.

Hey, it's your opinion, I don't have any problem with it.

Thank you gentlemen.

 

[Joe_Kickass]

So what's your point?

That the score may not have increased by much if it had a larger sample size.
74% and it's been certified as fresh, so I don't see that as being average review wise.
3.5/4 from Roger Ebert, A- from EW, B+ from Dallas Morning News, 4/5 from Variety and THR etc.

 

[Liam_H]

That the score may not have increased by much if it had a larger sample size.
74% and it's been certified as fresh, so I don't see that as being average.
3.5/4 from Roger Ebert, A- from EW, B+ from Dallas Morning News, 4/5 from Variety and THR etc.

So you're telling me that Forrest Gump would've stayed around 70% if it had accumulated 250 reviews back then? Whether or not that's true those numbers still aren't reliable considering such a huge difference in sample size.

 

[hatebox]

Average rating went down one notch to 6.8

The horror.... the horror....

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Eastwood's Changeling: 62%.
Aronofsky's The Fountain: 51%

And so many others. RT often sucks.

EDIT:
Batman '89: 70%

I've suddenly lost any faith in that site.

It's a shame because the vast majority of the time I agree with RT.

But in a few cases they're totally off base (Blade, Batman 89, ASM).

 

[Joe_Kickass]

So you're telling me that Forrest Gump would've stayed around 70% if it had accumulated 250 reviews back then? Whether or not that's true those numbers still aren't reliable considering such a huge difference in sample size.

Not around 70% but most likely in the 70-80% range.
It has 56 reviews, 40 positive and 16 negative.
If you multiple that by around 4 and say the negative reviews aren't really consistent then I think reasonably it would be around 182 positive and 42 negative.
So it would probably wind up around 79-81%.

 

[Jexx]

Also, I said this on another forum;

I expect ASM to be a better Spider-Man movie, even if it isn't the better movie. I expect this because of three main things.

1. Mechanical Webshooters
2. Snarky Personality
3. Gwen Stacy is the first love, and she actually acts like Gwen Stacy (unlike the one from SM3)

 

[Spiderdevil]

The way the pace changes randomly after the 1st hour 15 minutes gives me the feeling that its Arad forcing changes again
I guess the Lizard liar's scene and other scenes which have been cut off from the middle 45 minutes would have made the pace steady and made sense in the plot
Even though I was against it previously I now realize that the studio should have left that part in there even if it was Ang-Lee-hulk-type origin.
Even though the comic book fanatics would be angry,the General audience would have been happier with a steadier pace and a better plot with an addition story arc.Could have also helped avoiding some of those 'Been there,done that' reviews