What's The Last Movie You Watched? XIV - Part 14
- Thread starter Thread Manager
- Start date
- Status
Superhero 101
DESI
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 9,532
- Reaction score
- 575
- Points
- 73
The Amazing Spiderman
can't decide what to give it a 7.5 or an 8/10
can't decide what to give it a 7.5 or an 8/10
Ash J. Williams
Hail to the king
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
- Messages
- 23,776
- Reaction score
- 2,664
- Points
- 103
The first one is known as The Age of Ignorance aka Days of Darkness in English.
Lord Fanny
Charmed Darling
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
It's David Lynch
hammerhedd11
OHaiMark
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2004
- Messages
- 7,640
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
Moonrise Kingdom
Spider-Aziz
Dummy Dragon Holo
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2010
- Messages
- 83,442
- Reaction score
- 8,953
- Points
- 103
Sigh, with that in mind it definitely won't be a 10/10 movie
craigdbfan
Avenger
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2008
- Messages
- 31,172
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 56
Spider-Aziz
Dummy Dragon Holo
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2010
- Messages
- 83,442
- Reaction score
- 8,953
- Points
- 103
Episode III is the first SW movie I watched from start to finish, and it actually made me like the series after a long time of not caring at all
henry_9305
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,224
- Reaction score
- 87
- Points
- 73
10/10
One of my all-time favourites.
Kane52630
FOREVER⊙DILATING⊙EYE
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 124,097
- Reaction score
- 63,688
- Points
- 218
[YT]cnAIsrfZ8QI[/YT]
3dman27
super-hero wannabe
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2002
- Messages
- 38,529
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 31
most likey either or SAFE[ statigic actions for emergencies] director sean morgam substituting for nick fury
Watchman
Adios, Cowboy
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,174
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I would kill somebody in front of their own mother for a David Lynch Spider-Man movie.
Belle de Jour
Spider-Aziz
Dummy Dragon Holo
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2010
- Messages
- 83,442
- Reaction score
- 8,953
- Points
- 103
Men In Black
Still awesome
Still awesome
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 40,446
- Reaction score
- 6,223
- Points
- 103
The Amazing Spider-Man - 8/10
So this movie is still a needless Spider-Man reboot, retelling, or whatever you want to call it. It's still the origin all over again. And no matter what, no matter if this was the "origin of Peter Parker," it's still the origin of Spider-Man. That aspect had no real impact on the Spider-Man mythology. It just felt like a change for the sake of change to distance itself from the Raimi film, which at times, ironically, did feel like. For a film that tired to distance itself from it, I couldn't help but be reminded of it at different point, except the script that Raimi had was clear, simple and concise and got to everything within 15 minutes and it was an easy strand to follow. This has the origin, Peter's parents, Oscorp, Connors, Gwen, and Peter trying to solve the mystery (though this supposed mystery or secret goes missing by the third act or the second act... I couldn't really tell) Which reminds me... this film didn't have a good three act structure. I couldn't tell where things were going and where they were built up. They set up some things and built up to others, but there were no conclusions or it just got lost in the shuffle. I couldn't tell from when the first act ended to where the second act bgan and so on. If you stripped this movie down some, like taking out the origin, and make things more clear it would have benefited structurally.
Changes aside, for what this was I liked them. Though the problem is this: Those different ideas conflict with my ideas of how I see Spider-Man. Therefore, they will be inferior. See I can be more open minded about Batman between Burton and Nolan, but with this film, ten years rebooting with an origin story, and how things went down in the wrong way, are these comparisons justified? Yes. I'm the last person to do these type of things, but for a film that wanted to distance itself so much from the Raimi film, it managed from the devil's advocate point of view, to make the same mistakes he did. Yet... people love it. And hey, that's fine! Now they know how it feels to love something and to defend it when people criticize it.
Now there is no Raimi bias here. It's just what clicks. It's taste and preference. Now from a film enthusist's point of view, there are problems. Screenplay wise, like I said, there doesn't seem to be much of a three act structure. Things meander and take too long to get to other things. Like Peter and Gwen's relationship. It's good, but nothing special. Not like Maguire and Dunst where I rooted for Peter to get with MJ. here, before they even kiss, it's just awkward emotions, staring, and nervous laughing. I liked Garfield and Stone's chemistry, it just wasn't as memorable and firey as Maguire and Dunst, whose chemstry ranks among those of RDJ and Paltrow and Reeve and Kidder.
I also like to see that Webb, like Raimi is a filmmaker who knows when Spider-Man should quip. I just love how people thought Spider-man was gonna quip more... yet, he quips about in two scenes, and the most in the first time he does it. So much for more quipping. Webb knows when to take a hero seriously when the stakes are high and jokes don't get in the way, no matter what the comic book version may do.
Now, I gave this an 8 out of 10. I really liked this movie. Again, as someone who doesn't entirely agree with things that occurred, I was very pleased with this movie. It surprised me in ways and it didn't disappoint, other than the Lizard, my favorite Spider-Man villain, who just felt like a typical CG movie monster creature causing havoc and going through the motions. Rhys Ifans as Connors was where the potential lay. Except I felt he and his relationship with Peter wasn't properly developed and moving as it could have been. Something like the extent of something like Peter and Octavious in SM2, which was genuine and heartfelt and very human. There was a real honesty in the chaos of their relationship. Here, Connors starts out as a good natured man with good intentions. Then, when he turns into the Lizard, his intentions and character become muddled and not entirely well developed and rationialized. Again, this is the fault of the screenplay.
But I liked Garfield as Spider-Man. I loved him in places and thought he was very much a comic book Spider-Man/Peter. More modern than the more Ditko/Romita 60's and 70's Peter that Maguire played. It's just at times, he was a bit too introverted. He didn't entirely open himself up completely to me where I couldn't be let into what he was feeling or thinking. With Maguire, I could tell on the look of his face, I knew exactly what he was thinking. Maguire is still a dork, but he's more confident at who he is and knows who he is. Garfield is still awkward and doesn't change much in personality from start to finish. Gwen just falls for the same guy at the beginning.
That goes without saying, Garfield is funny and enjoyable to watch. I was pleased he wasn't this mopey outcast with issues. He's still a nerd, still loveable. Garfield can really work the suit. In words and most of all, in motion. Man, I was so impressed by how he moved. So spider like. Helped by the wonderful practical effects, something helped by the evolution of technology, something they didn't have 10 years ago. But there's still plenty of CGI ironically.
This movie still feels like a comic book movie. Despite it being labeled dark and gritty, it still felt like a Spider-Man film, just more modern and with an edge. I was glad to see the difference in attitude and tone. Both feel like Spider-Man, but in their own way.
This is obviously not my Spider-Man. I got it ten years ago and got it again in 2004. I'm glad some people are finally getting theirs. But prepare to defend it, just like I've been doing for the past four years. It's just I got deja vu and couldn't help but think back to the first two Raimi films. What he did and did better. It made me want to watch them again. it just made me love and appreciate them even more.
Now that they got this damn origin out of the way, they have their footing and are off to a great start, and they can move onto something truly amazing. No pun intended.
So this movie is still a needless Spider-Man reboot, retelling, or whatever you want to call it. It's still the origin all over again. And no matter what, no matter if this was the "origin of Peter Parker," it's still the origin of Spider-Man. That aspect had no real impact on the Spider-Man mythology. It just felt like a change for the sake of change to distance itself from the Raimi film, which at times, ironically, did feel like. For a film that tired to distance itself from it, I couldn't help but be reminded of it at different point, except the script that Raimi had was clear, simple and concise and got to everything within 15 minutes and it was an easy strand to follow. This has the origin, Peter's parents, Oscorp, Connors, Gwen, and Peter trying to solve the mystery (though this supposed mystery or secret goes missing by the third act or the second act... I couldn't really tell) Which reminds me... this film didn't have a good three act structure. I couldn't tell where things were going and where they were built up. They set up some things and built up to others, but there were no conclusions or it just got lost in the shuffle. I couldn't tell from when the first act ended to where the second act bgan and so on. If you stripped this movie down some, like taking out the origin, and make things more clear it would have benefited structurally.
Changes aside, for what this was I liked them. Though the problem is this: Those different ideas conflict with my ideas of how I see Spider-Man. Therefore, they will be inferior. See I can be more open minded about Batman between Burton and Nolan, but with this film, ten years rebooting with an origin story, and how things went down in the wrong way, are these comparisons justified? Yes. I'm the last person to do these type of things, but for a film that wanted to distance itself so much from the Raimi film, it managed from the devil's advocate point of view, to make the same mistakes he did. Yet... people love it. And hey, that's fine! Now they know how it feels to love something and to defend it when people criticize it.
Now there is no Raimi bias here. It's just what clicks. It's taste and preference. Now from a film enthusist's point of view, there are problems. Screenplay wise, like I said, there doesn't seem to be much of a three act structure. Things meander and take too long to get to other things. Like Peter and Gwen's relationship. It's good, but nothing special. Not like Maguire and Dunst where I rooted for Peter to get with MJ. here, before they even kiss, it's just awkward emotions, staring, and nervous laughing. I liked Garfield and Stone's chemistry, it just wasn't as memorable and firey as Maguire and Dunst, whose chemstry ranks among those of RDJ and Paltrow and Reeve and Kidder.
I also like to see that Webb, like Raimi is a filmmaker who knows when Spider-Man should quip. I just love how people thought Spider-man was gonna quip more... yet, he quips about in two scenes, and the most in the first time he does it. So much for more quipping. Webb knows when to take a hero seriously when the stakes are high and jokes don't get in the way, no matter what the comic book version may do.
Now, I gave this an 8 out of 10. I really liked this movie. Again, as someone who doesn't entirely agree with things that occurred, I was very pleased with this movie. It surprised me in ways and it didn't disappoint, other than the Lizard, my favorite Spider-Man villain, who just felt like a typical CG movie monster creature causing havoc and going through the motions. Rhys Ifans as Connors was where the potential lay. Except I felt he and his relationship with Peter wasn't properly developed and moving as it could have been. Something like the extent of something like Peter and Octavious in SM2, which was genuine and heartfelt and very human. There was a real honesty in the chaos of their relationship. Here, Connors starts out as a good natured man with good intentions. Then, when he turns into the Lizard, his intentions and character become muddled and not entirely well developed and rationialized. Again, this is the fault of the screenplay.
But I liked Garfield as Spider-Man. I loved him in places and thought he was very much a comic book Spider-Man/Peter. More modern than the more Ditko/Romita 60's and 70's Peter that Maguire played. It's just at times, he was a bit too introverted. He didn't entirely open himself up completely to me where I couldn't be let into what he was feeling or thinking. With Maguire, I could tell on the look of his face, I knew exactly what he was thinking. Maguire is still a dork, but he's more confident at who he is and knows who he is. Garfield is still awkward and doesn't change much in personality from start to finish. Gwen just falls for the same guy at the beginning.
That goes without saying, Garfield is funny and enjoyable to watch. I was pleased he wasn't this mopey outcast with issues. He's still a nerd, still loveable. Garfield can really work the suit. In words and most of all, in motion. Man, I was so impressed by how he moved. So spider like. Helped by the wonderful practical effects, something helped by the evolution of technology, something they didn't have 10 years ago. But there's still plenty of CGI ironically.
This movie still feels like a comic book movie. Despite it being labeled dark and gritty, it still felt like a Spider-Man film, just more modern and with an edge. I was glad to see the difference in attitude and tone. Both feel like Spider-Man, but in their own way.
This is obviously not my Spider-Man. I got it ten years ago and got it again in 2004. I'm glad some people are finally getting theirs. But prepare to defend it, just like I've been doing for the past four years. It's just I got deja vu and couldn't help but think back to the first two Raimi films. What he did and did better. It made me want to watch them again. it just made me love and appreciate them even more.
Now that they got this damn origin out of the way, they have their footing and are off to a great start, and they can move onto something truly amazing. No pun intended.
Last edited:
DyeLorean
...and the plot thickens
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 9,382
- Reaction score
- 5,508
- Points
- 103
I saw it on cable yesterday. I haven't seen it in like... 15 years. The special effects in the final act are TERRIBLE.
How come I never noticed it when I was 9 years old??
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Messages
- 40,446
- Reaction score
- 6,223
- Points
- 103
Because you were looking at Kimberly.
Eddie Dean
Jokerfied
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Messages
- 17,380
- Reaction score
- 11,891
- Points
- 103
Mark Whalberg appearing for a micro-second at the beginning makes me love this clip all the more.
Starring Ray Wise as The Green Goblin and Sheryl Lee as Gwen Stacey!Watchman said:
- Status
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
OnTheAirWakandan Ambassador -
Lily Adler🔥 Hot Scoops 🍨 -
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator
