The Amazing Spider-Man Why are critics so stupid!?

[LegendAssemble]

Okay this movie is really poorly marketed and some of the reviews have been extremely stupid. I personally thought this movie was going to be terrible and went in wanting to hate it. Partially because I was a fan of the Raimi films and I had seen reviews comparing the film to Twilight and saying it was EXACTLY like 2002's Spider-Man. Anyway those are both completely off!

It is like 2002's Spider-Man in the sense that Peter learns he has to make the tough choices to protect those he loves, however he makes the wrong choice at the end of this one and it will surely lead to disaster in the sequel.

If I had to say it reminded me of any movie I'd say it reminded me of a more serious version of Kick-Ass. Peter isn't a nerd per-say, he's more of a loser. Nerds these days are typically not quiet and have quite a few nerd friends and are very openly strange. Peter is extremely shy and introverted, he's awkward and doesn't have much confidence. It's a very realistic depiction of what a true outcast in high school is today. Also his transformation into a superhero reminded me of what a loser who was actually crazy enough to try to be a superhero would be like in the real world, much like Kick-Ass.

Anyway I personally eat almost every word I said and I personally I think I'm going to like this movie more than the Dark Knight at the end of the month. The only complaint I still have was choosing the Lizard as the main villain. He's not particularly compelling and he could have been done much much better. However, Garfield as Spider-Man carries the film so well its easy to overlook the Lizard's short comings, much like how Downey's performance in Iron Man allowed us to over look how stupid the Iron Monger's plan was.

Anyone left with doubts reading this, needs to give it a shot.

 

[Octoberist]

critics are stupid when you disagree with them, but if you agree with them, then they are placed on shoulders. I'm not saying they're right all the time, but let's not paint in broad strokes here.

 

[Tony Stark]

I also thought I was going to hate this movie, and found it enjoyable and in some respects improved on some things from the Raimi trilogy, and had some great performances to boot.

However, I can totally see where the critics are coming from. This movie really doesn't introduce anything new to the series. It's probably the least ambitious superhero movie I've seen in a long time.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Okay this movie is really poorly marketed and some of the reviews have been extremely stupid. I personally thought this movie was going to be terrible and went in wanting to hate it. Partially because I was a fan of the Raimi films and I had seen reviews comparing the film to Twilight and saying it was EXACTLY like 2002's Spider-Man. Anyway those are both completely off!

It is like 2002's Spider-Man in the sense that Peter learns he has to make the tough choices to protect those he loves, however he makes the wrong choice at the end of this one and it will surely lead to disaster in the sequel.

If I had to say it reminded me of any movie I'd say it reminded me of a more serious version of Kick-Ass. Peter isn't a nerd per-say, he's more of a loser. Nerds these days are typically not quiet and have quite a few nerd friends and are very openly strange. Peter is extremely shy and introverted, he's awkward and doesn't have much confidence. It's a very realistic depiction of what a true outcast in high school is today. Also his transformation into a superhero reminded me of what a loser who was actually crazy enough to try to be a superhero would be like in the real world, much like Kick-Ass.

Anyway I personally eat almost every word I said and I personally I think I'm going to like this movie more than the Dark Knight at the end of the month. The only complaint I still have was choosing the Lizard as the main villain. He's not particularly compelling and he could have been done much much better. However, Garfield as Spider-Man carries the film so well its easy to overlook the Lizard's short comings, much like how Downey's performance in Iron Man allowed us to over look how stupid the Iron Monger's plan was.

Anyone left with doubts reading this, needs to give it a shot.

this critics are being way too harsh on this movie
also, I never thought that the lizard was a good choice for the first movie. Why? Well, they tried to carve out the potential of a main villain in a movie, which just isn't there. When it's not comics or a tv-show, the lizard should be a part of a bigger picture (I know this has been said like a million times, but Kraven & The Lizard should be together in a movie. It would be like a half-adaptation of "Kraven's last hunt" with The Lizard taking the place of The Vermin. But even then it's more of sequel material)

I haven't yet even seen the movie, but I just feel that I know that. I'm still standing by what I originally said: this movie should've had a smaller caliber villain, yet one who still has a story like The Scorpion. It's clearly more of Peter's story than the villains with this movie so it didn't really need something like the lizard yet. Also, with a reboot as unstable as this is, they shouldn't blow their wad immediately with the villain

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't see how they're being too harsh. I swear people with Rotten tomatoes act like a 70% score is the same as a Green Lantern 27%. Sorry folks but the critics liked Raimi's Spider-man 1 better, and that's how it goes down. It doesn't mean this is a bad movie, or that you can't like it better.

 

[X Knight]

Every critic has his or her own tastes and opinions. Just like every poster here has his/her own tastes and opinions.

Some people love this film. Some just think it's ok. Some hate it.

I had low expectations going in to see TASM. And I left the theater feeling pretty much the same way. While I didn't hate the movie completely ( there were a few aspects I liked ), overall, I didn't like it very much. I though they were way off with Peter's character, and the most crucial part of the origin story ( Uncle Ben's death ), they really dropped the ball on it.

It all felt.......just......boring. Like, I found myself not really caring about anything that's happening on the screen.

After watching TASM, I like the Raimi films (especially the 1st 2) even more.

But that's just how I feel...........

 

[TheWallCrawler]

I don't see how they're being too harsh. I swear people with Rotten tomatoes act like a 70% score is the same as a Green Lantern 27%. Sorry folks but the critics liked Raimi's Spider-man 1 better, and that's how it goes down. It doesn't mean this is a bad movie, or that you can't like it better.

Jeremy Jahns and Chris Stuckman both prefered it to Raimi's Spider-Man, and out of all critics they have always been my most respected ones

I know, they're not really official certified critics, but usually those certified critics are full of ****. For example, a few of these "trust worthy" critics gave The Dark Knight 3 stars /5

 

[PSYLENTGuardian]

If anything, those who don't like how ASM is stacked among other movies, just check out the Metacritic scores, and keep in mind that superhero films are judged differently now, due to the bar set by the MCU films and The Dark Knight.

 

[TheWallCrawler]

huh? somehow I didn't quite get what you mean by that

 

[LegendAssemble]

But it's not only this movie. If you look Revenge of the Sith has a higher critic rating on RT than Return of the Jedi! But the reviews are extremely biased to the fact that it's a reboot. I agree with them 100% this movie should not exist and it's totally unnecessary, however, it is what it is, and the movie is actually very good.

Some of the things they're saying is totally uncalled for. I mean the real citisms they should be making, like about the editing, aren't being addressed in favor of reiterating the fact it's a reboot!

 

[Liam_H]

On your first point 66 review compared to 250. Shouldn't be compared.

Its quite valid in my opinion. A Batman reboot coming in 3 years or so will have the same hurdle to go through.

 

[Smegger56]

If they don't like the film, then that's fair enough. I get that this wont be loved by everyone.

BUT, those twilight comparisons and the 'It's exactly like the Raimi' films are, for me, silly comments. This film shares the same material of the comics like the Raimi film, but that's it.

Btw, when would an origin film have been necessary anyway? Just wondering

 

[Eggyman]

Why are critics so stupid!?

They're paid to be.

 

[Oscorp]

this critics are being way too harsh on this movie
also, I never thought that the lizard was a good choice for the first movie. Why? Well, they tried to carve out the potential of a main villain in a movie, which just isn't there. When it's not comics or a tv-show, the lizard should be a part of a bigger picture (I know this has been said like a million times, but Kraven & The Lizard should be together in a movie. It would be like a half-adaptation of "Kraven's last hunt" with The Lizard taking the place of The Vermin. But even then it's more of sequel material)

I haven't yet even seen the movie, but I just feel that I know that. I'm still standing by what I originally said: this movie should've had a smaller caliber villain, yet one who still has a story like The Scorpion. It's clearly more of Peter's story than the villains with this movie so it didn't really need something like the lizard yet. Also, with a reboot as unstable as this is, they shouldn't blow their wad immediately with the villain

I can easily see Lizard carry a film on his own, just not in an origin movie. It's the same problem I had with Green Goblin in SM1.

 

[JerseyJoker]

I dont read reviews. I go see films.

That's how i am. Even if Spidey got %5 tomatoes, i would still see it and loved it cause i went into ASM and loved every second of it, being blown away by its look, feel, acting, action, etc...

I dont give no **** what some guy behind a screen writes, only thing that matters to me is what i feel and see from the film.

 

[FrostBite]

As a paid critic/editor, let me explain something extremely delicate.

We are a referential source. In the end our opinion means nothing, we are simply someone refer to (if you happen to agree with us often) in an attempt to find out if you'd like to actually spend your hard earned money on a product. Aggregate sites such as RT and Metacritic are a pile of doo-doo and assigning a score to a product is an even bigger pile of fecal matter. Those scores are meaningless, and trust me, you tirelessly try to shoehorn your opinion into a letter/star/number grade simply to appeal to your boss/those readers who do not read your actual material.

With that said, even if you do happen to agree with us often you won't agree with us all of the time. Our word isn't law, and outside of the most pompous (staring at you Ebert) we never act like it is. We're just a very vocal group of voices evaluating a product and trying to entertain you with it.

If you liked it, like it man. Stop worrying about the complaints.

Surf Ninjas might be a terrible movie to 99.9% of living organisms, but it won't stop me from loving it.

It's not like it's B.O. will tank, and they've already confirmed a trilogy, they won't let this property go unless disaster strikes.

 

[LegendAssemble]

As a paid critic/editor, let me explain something extremely delicate.

We are a referential source. In the end our opinion means nothing, we are simply someone refer to (if you happen to agree with us often) in an attempt to find out if you'd like to actually spend your hard earned money on a product. Aggregate sites such as RT and Metacritic are a pile of doo-doo and assigning a score to a product is an even bigger pile of fecal matter. Those scores are meaningless, and trust me, you tirelessly try to shoehorn your opinion into a letter/star/number grade simply to appeal to your boss/those readers who do not read your actual material.

With that said, even if you do happen to agree with us often you won't agree with us all of the time. Our word isn't law, and outside of the most pompous (staring at you Ebert) we never act like it is. We're just a very vocal group of voices evaluating a product and trying to entertain you with it.

If you liked it, like it man. Stop worrying about the complaints.

Surf Ninjas might be a terrible movie to 99.9% of living organisms, but it won't stop me from loving it.

It's not like it's B.O. will tank, and they've already confirmed a trilogy, they won't let this property go unless disaster strikes.

I mean I just feel like a lot of these reviews aren't actually opinion based. I could totally understand if they complained about the editing, the pacing, ect, but comparing it to twilight or saying its EXACTLY like Raimi's film is ludicrous. I could see some points where it was similar to Raimi's (sketching the costumes, the Lizard and Conners arguing with each other like norman and Goblin, a father gets impaled, Peter has to say no to the woman he loves, ect.) but these felt more like paying homage than ripping off (which there is a fine line between). Anyway I agree with what you say %100 percent, I just feel theres some kind of push to get this movie to fail, just because its a reboot.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

On your first point 66 review compared to 250. Shouldn't be compared.

Its quite valid in my opinion. A Batman reboot coming in 3 years or so will have the same hurdle to go through.

Maybe. Depends on how it is handled. If it starts with the Waynes getting murdered and it shows how Bruce became Batman, then definitely.

 

[Frodo]

People are gonna compare this to the 2002 Spiderman film because , like it or not, the Raimi films were embraced by a generation of kids and film goers. We can't underestimate the fact that, to many people Tobey Macguire IS Spiderman. Further many peoples image of what a Spiderman film is or should be, is based on what they saw in the Raimi's films. Fair or not , that's how it is. ASM isn't somehow gonna make people forget about those films, even if audiences think ASM is better .

However , this old versus new comparrison is nothing new. Henry Cavill will be compared to Chris Reeve and MOS is gonna be measured by the standards set up by the Donner film. People are still comparing TDK with B89 , and arguing about whether Bale is as good as Keaton etc. Heck , Mark Rufflo's Banner was being compared to Bill Bixby from the Hulk TV show in the 70's. In the end , as has been stated, what critics say about a film really doesn't matter. Whether you like a film or not is dependent on you.

 

[bullets]

I do enjoy reading reviews but ultimately have to see the film for myself to decide. Also I noticed my mood can sometimes alter my views. I might not like something at first but then rediscover it later.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

People are gonna compare this to the 2002 Spiderman film because , like it or not, the Raimi films were embraced by a generation of kids and film goers. We can't underestimate the fact that, to many people Tobey Macguire IS Spiderman. Further many peoples image of what a Spiderman film is or should be, is based on what they saw in the Raimi's films. Fair or not , that's how it is. ASM isn't somehow gonna make people forget about those films, even if audiences think ASM is better .

However , this old versus new comparrison is nothing new. Henry Cavill will be compared to Chris Reeve and MOS is gonna be measured by the standards set up by the Donner film. People are still comparing TDK with B89 , and arguing about whether Bale is as good as Keaton etc. Heck , Mark Rufflo's Banner was being compared to Bill Bixby from the Hulk TV show in the 70's. In the end , as has been stated, what critics say about a film really doesn't matter. Whether you like a film or not is dependent on you.

This. If people think that critics are being unfair to TASM, they'll want to stay away from the James Bond series where every single film is compared to what Sean Connery did fifty years ago.

 

[FrostBite]

I mean I just feel like a lot of these reviews aren't actually opinion based. I could totally understand if they complained about the editing, the pacing, ect, but comparing it to twilight or saying its EXACTLY like Raimi's film is ludicrous. I could see some points where it was similar to Raimi's (sketching the costumes, the Lizard and Conners arguing with each other like norman and Goblin, a father gets impaled, Peter has to say no to the woman he loves, ect.) but these felt more like paying homage than ripping off (which there is a fine line between). Anyway I agree with what you say %100 percent, I just feel theres some kind of push to get this movie to fail, just because its a reboot.

As Frodo said, the last three movies made gigantic waves. They weren't just blockbusters, they became a part of pop-culture history. The masses and critics alike loved them. Even the most hated entry didn't dip into dud territory in terms of B.O. or critical ratings.

So coming out with a new reboot so soon after those, they are of course going to come under scrutiny. Imagine, if you will Return of the Jedi wrapped up the Star Wars saga and 4 years later Star Wars was rebooted. ...Imagine the immense amount of nitpicking it'd receive. We're comic fans, we're used to alternative versions, reboots, alternate universes, etc. It's nothing new for us, but a movie critic isn't necessarily a comicbook fan, there's no conspiracy, they have to evaluate it as a film against the films that just came out. Heck, their readers are even expecting it. There wasn't that big of a pause between franchises.

As for the Twilight comparisons, I confess, I've seen every entry with my wife... and at times, yeah, the movie kinda gives off that vibe at times. But it never lasts long. But as for mirroring Raimi's? Critics have a valid complaint. A lot of it is copy and pasted with an added twist or lingering sense to "flesh it out" while that's nice they have to evaluate "Was it needed?" and in the end while no film is "needed" that might not be a big enough change to really validate the existence of starting from scratch 10 years later.

I mean, my wife and I sat down to watch the original afterward and despite thinking this newest entry was vastly changed in comparison... it really wasn't. All the way down to strange consistencies like Aunt May having meatloaf left in the fridge for Peter or him catching something to hear "great reflexes", etc. That's not an easter-egg, and at times it's almost as if they took the original, added the cross-species hooked and then dashed in some conspiracy.

Now, I am not saying I thought it was all the same, I thought it was quite different, but if a reviewer (like one from IGN if I remember correctly) walks in and sees so many similar scenes it might not be enough to validate this new approach for them. It may conjure similar emotions, that may now be far less of an impact than the first go-around. For me, Conners talking to himself was a direct throw back to GG, but far less engaging, perhaps this is how other critics may see much of the movie itself?

 

[Liam_H]

Maybe. Depends on how it is handled. If it starts with the Waynes getting murdered and it shows how Bruce became Batman, then definitely.

Well, yeah. If they do another origin story for Batman critics will compare it with Begins. And if its not as good or it offers nothing new they'll just say forget this new one and watch Begins again.

 

[roach]

OMG The critics hated a movie I liked