• 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by stoodspoon (650 posts) -

Their were parts I really liked and some that I thought were really bad.

#2 Edited by falserelic (5476 posts) -

It was alright for what it was nothing amazing by any means. It has issues, but overall I enjoyed the game. Going around blasting people with a Rasengan like power up was a good time.

#3 Posted by pinner458 (810 posts) -

It was alright for what it was nothing amazing by any means. It has issues, but overall I enjoyed the game. Going around blasting people with a Rasengan like power up was a good time.

I see what you did there...

#4 Posted by xaLieNxGrEyx (2605 posts) -

The movie or game?

#5 Posted by handlas (2700 posts) -

That's an interesting review.

There were parts that were good and parts that were bad?

I'm seeing it next weekend but I don't really care much too. It's for Mother's day of all things. I'd rather see Captain America. I did FINALLY buy Spider-man Shattered Dimensions. I've been wanting to play that for the longest time and never did and all this Spider-man talk finally got me to do it. I'm ready to be disappointed but, honestly, it looks like Beenox's best Spidey game.

#6 Posted by Humanity (9647 posts) -

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

#7 Posted by stoodspoon (650 posts) -
#8 Edited by TheAcidSkull (609 posts) -

I already wrote my thoughts on another site so, here goes.

First of all,one of the primary aspects I have to mention here is that the movie shifts and changes in a lot of areas, most notably the tone. While The Amazing Spider-man was actually trying to be extremely dark, amazing Spider-man 2 is now much more lighthearted and fun, which in my personal opinion is a much better suited to someone like spider-man. Speaking of which, due to this alteration the humor is pretty well integrated into the film, I actually found myself laughing at the jokes rather than cringing every single time like I did with some of the other recent superhero movies( Iron man 3 and Thor 2). It doesn't compromise the overall tone and ends up being one of the films strengths. Sure it could be considered a shallow aspect but balancing the dark and fun aspects of a movie, as recent evidence suggest, is not as easy as it may look. I'm also happy that we've returned to the more classic spider-man costume as opposed to the previous one, which, while decent, wouldn't really fit the tone of who and what spider-man really is. Plus Andrew really seems like the jokester type of person so it's fun seeing him actually enjoy his time as a superhero.

And on that note, Andrew really nails spider-man in this movie, in fact, I'd got far as to say that his spider-man/peter parker is one of the strongest aspects of the whole film. He works really well with Emma stone and the banter feels natural and fun. Both Peter and Gwen have terrific chemistry and it was definitely interesting to see them deal with some of the developments that took place in the previous movies. Moreover, as hard as it was seeing Jamie Fox as a complete loser after a movie like Django Unchained, i have to say that I really thought he did a good job with whatever he was given, and his electro was pretty interesting too, though I have to say that I was expecting something MUCH worse in all honesty. The trailers kinda showed that once Max was neglected he decided to go nuts and become evil which would have been absolutely goofy and ridiculous( and it came very close to that). I'm glad it was shown how he was severely damaged from his accident and how he saw this incident as an opportunity to go from nobody to somebody. It was pretty much bound that they'd go with a chlice story for elector but I really wish they'd choose another tale for Max, I mean, why make an intimidating villain a fanboy? I mean, not that it's a bad thing but giant electricity-shooting fanboy with attention issues does not a good villain make. Don't get me wrong, he's likable and cool but as an antagonist he isn't that much aside from the power aspect. Though I can't believe anyone criticized his design. Guys, watch the movie, trust me, that's one department you won't have problems with. And as for Dehaans harry Osborn, he I actually loved as a character, though some of the directions the movie goes in is highly unwarranted, but we'll get to that a bit later. Anyways, I don't understand where the complaint comes in that harry was underdeveloped. How was he underdeveloped again? This is a character we saw for the first time, so him being nice to an old friend doesn't make him a great guy in the least. And even if he was, we just saw one of the darkest moments in his life so I'm assuming that somehow that is what contributed to his paranoia and anger. I mean, the guy is considerably young, he saw his father at the bring of a horrible death, and just before his father died he told his son that he was destined to go down the same way. Also, am I the only one who noticed that norman, while using a cain, still looked healthy during the video peter saw? Meaning that Harry's condition was more aggressive. And to add insult to injury he was betrayed by some assh@le business man and was kicked out of his own company. So what's the problem? Harry's development was fine. However, the problem lies in the fact that the Goblins inclusion was completely unnecessary, in fact, I really wish they'd save him for the third film. The fight scene with him was extremely underwhelming and short lived. and did Gwen really have to die? I mean, don't get me wrong it was really emotional but it would have been better if her death had been done in a movie where her killer is the actual main villain of the story. I mean I can understand Rhino's appearance, he was essentially a cameo (Irked me a bit since hew as advertised so much), but for Green Goblin there was simply no room in the movie. For harry? Sure. For Goblin? Nope. Though looking back at it know, and also thanks to a conversation I had with friend of mine, he helped me understand the Green Goblins significance. I see now that after electro was beaten, after Gwen Peter had won the fight, Gwen died only because peter parker was spider-man, and for no other reason. When harry figured out Spider-man's true identity, he felt betrayed, and he wanted to hurt spider-man the best he could, and even though he technically lost, he still won in the end.

Aside from that however, the film was pretty great, especially visually. I mean damn, my jaw dropped during the the spider-man vs Electro fight, it was so well done and it actually felt like a spider-man fight. And in case you didn't know, this means that peter utilizes his power and strength in order to best his foe, so imagine how happy i was every time peter used his perspective and smarts to get something done. The battles itself engage you and makes the audience feel as if they are involved, which really speaks for itself actually.

Overall, is Amazing spider-man 2 amazing? No, but is it great? Pretty much, yeah. The movie does have some problems that it needs to sort out later on but it's a vast improvement over the first film and it does set the stage for the following installments. Plus, it's pretty entertaining and fun and will promise you a very good time. It's been a while since I saw a Georgian audience stand up and applaud the movie, in fact i was a bit surprised, but the adulation was well deserved, because the movie was essentially pretty fun and good. On the other hand though, I'm tired of weak villains, not power wise, character wise, obviously. The movie had two chances of giving us villains and in both cases they were underdeveloped, I wish they correct in the future. But you know what they say, third times the charm! oh wait..never mind.

Score: 8/10

#9 Posted by TheAcidSkull (609 posts) -

@humanity said:

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

That's not true, all of the dimensions are fun and have their own unique elements. Each universe has it's own style and personality.

#10 Posted by Humanity (9647 posts) -

@humanity said:

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

That's not true, all of the dimensions are fun and have their own unique elements. Each universe has it's own style and personality.

I stand corrected sir, I fully admit to not having played it and hearsay on the internet can be misleading.

#11 Edited by handlas (2700 posts) -

@humanity said:

@theacidskull said:

@humanity said:

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

That's not true, all of the dimensions are fun and have their own unique elements. Each universe has it's own style and personality.

I stand corrected sir, I fully admit to not having played it and hearsay on the internet can be misleading.

It is the best reviewed game from the latest ones they have done. You could be thinking of Edge of Time which had 2 Spidermen and that game is suppose to be bad. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the first Amazing Spiderman game though I know that's probably quite different than Shattered Dimensions since it's open world and Shattered is not. Amazing Spiderman 2 (the game) looked plain terrible though.

As for the movie, it looks like it has Spidey 3 syndrome. Too many villains. And Electro looks kinda dumb.

#12 Posted by TheAcidSkull (609 posts) -

@humanity said:

@theacidskull said:

@humanity said:

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

That's not true, all of the dimensions are fun and have their own unique elements. Each universe has it's own style and personality.

I stand corrected sir, I fully admit to not having played it and hearsay on the internet can be misleading.

Well in terms of comic book games, or spider-man games in general, it fits most categories. The Voice actors are basically love letters to the fans, the boss battles are fun and engaging, and while some universes have a comic-booky style which many people complained about, i really found it refreshing, because it helps create the atmosphere. And unlike Web of shadows, which had terrific gameplay, spider-man SD had an awesome comicbook-kind of fun story as well. :)

The only REAL pain in the ass is the fucking camera.

#13 Edited by Humanity (9647 posts) -

@handlas said:

@humanity said:

@theacidskull said:

@humanity said:

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

That's not true, all of the dimensions are fun and have their own unique elements. Each universe has it's own style and personality.

I stand corrected sir, I fully admit to not having played it and hearsay on the internet can be misleading.

It is the best reviewed game from the latest ones they have done. You could be thinking of Edge of Time which had 2 Spidermen and that game is suppose to be bad. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the first Amazing Spiderman game though I know that's probably quite different than Shattered Dimensions since it's open world and Shattered is not. Amazing Spiderman 2 (the game) looked plain terrible though.

I looked on Steam and sadly it appears that they don't have Shattered Dimensions there, unless I'm searching wrong or something, which could be an issue as despite all the love Steam is getting their UI is still bloated and half broken.

#14 Posted by TheAcidSkull (609 posts) -

@handlas said:

@humanity said:

@theacidskull said:

@humanity said:

@handlas: I've heard half of the dimensions are bad and the other half are alright to bad. This is the one with Spiderman Noir and all that nonsense right? I always thought that Spiderman 2099 had a cool universe but not sure if thats represented that well in the game.

That's not true, all of the dimensions are fun and have their own unique elements. Each universe has it's own style and personality.

I stand corrected sir, I fully admit to not having played it and hearsay on the internet can be misleading.

It is the best reviewed game from the latest ones they have done. You could be thinking of Edge of Time which had 2 Spidermen and that game is suppose to be bad. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the first Amazing Spiderman game though I know that's probably quite different than Shattered Dimensions since it's open world and Shattered is not. Amazing Spiderman 2 (the game) looked plain terrible though.

As for the movie, it looks like it has Spidey 3 syndrome. Too many villains. And Electro looks kinda dumb.

I had the same fear, it doesn't have the same problem. Well not to the same magnitude at least.

#15 Edited by pinner458 (810 posts) -

The CGI for Spider-man approaches Catwoman like levels of shittyness I think. A rubber band slinking around New York.

And Electro looks SO dumb.

#16 Edited by Hyuzen (461 posts) -

Yeah I think it was better than the first one, This version of Peter is much better than the first trilogy's version.

There was a bunch of set up and winking towards fans like "hey you know this person/thing? it's totally gonna come back again in a movie or two! just trust us!" so some parts of it felt kind of unfinished, like we should've seen more of it.

Electro was a pretty cool villain, I think he was well done both in how he looks but also his whole arc. It didn't feel like he just decided to suddenly be evil, but he kind of mirrors the start to Spiderman. In the first Amazing Spiderman he starts out as a vigilante looking for the guy who shot his uncle, he hasn't yet learned the whole "great power, great responsibility thing" and Electro could have easily gone the way of Spiderman if he had the proper training/wasn't already kind of crazy.

I was really hoping that with all of Gwen's talk of going to Europe the movie was going to mess with our expectations. We'd all expect her to die at the end but she'd actually survive and just leave to England and never see Peter again. Sadly that didn't happen. It's hard to see the impact that this had on Peter in this movie (besides the "we haven't seen Spiderman for 5 months!") and I hope in the sequel they really deal with this and make her death actually meaningful.

I think it's worth seeing if you thought the first one was at least ok, otherwise I doubt this would change your mind.

Also, Electro's fight scenes had some pretty cool music integration, I thought that was fun.

#17 Edited by DonChipotle (2787 posts) -

The movie was really bad. Like, it was just a pile of shit. In a two and a half hour movie, everything about it felt rushed, from the terrible Gwen/Peter stuff to the horrible Harry/Peter relationship that didn't work on any level, and especially Electro. They would have been better off only having one villain rather than trying to have both Electro and Green Goblin's origins in the same movie. Because when it comes to Electro, he just becomes some henchman whose ability and power depends only on the convenience of the plot. One minute he's able to not become physical matter anymore, the next he can get hit by a car and be stunned. Somehow he is stopped by water. I played Pokemon. I know how water does against electricity.

The Harry and Peter thing is just terrible. They are supposed to be friends, old friends at that, but nothing in the movie makes this seem true. Like at all. Peter had to come out and say "Harry is my best buddy" because when you don't want to devote time to making a friendship play out, just tell the audience that they are friends. Harry's whole plot in the movie is incredibly stupid, like even amidst all the stupid shit already in the movie. He exists in the movie specifically to become Green Goblin by the end of it because they needed Green Goblin for the inevitable sequels and Sinister Six shit they are doing. He's not a character. He's a plot device for future movies.

That's kind of the point of everything in the movie. Just plot devices. Better introduce this incredibly minor character whose name will get you comic readers going "Ohhh" because, hey, guess what, sequels. At least when the Marvel movieverse movies make references to characters (like Dr. Strange in the new Captain America movie) it's done more as a subtle wink and nod, and there's also an actual movie surrounding it. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is just a series of tangentially related subplots that coincidentally come to an anticlimactic resolution in the last ten minutes. Even the final scene is anti-climactic and happens purely as a result of coincidence.

The performances are bland, Jamie Foxx just comes off as laughable, but not in the laughably pathetic way they were trying for with his Max Dillon character, and not even Sally Field manages to show emotion during the scenes where she exists specifically to show emotion.

It was a bad movie. And then the post credit, or mid credit scene, is just a reminder of a (hopefully) better movie coming out this month. They couldn't even be bothered to hype their inevitable Spider Man sequel. Great job.

This post brought to you by Sony. BE MOVED.

#18 Posted by Nezza (373 posts) -

I enjoyed the bit where Delsin Rowe got Neon powers and became a renegade in Times Square.

Seriously though, I enjoyed it a lot. Good popcorn, turn your brain off, try to act surprised when the massively telegraphed parts happen, Saturday night film... Even if I did see it on a Monday.

#19 Posted by zombie2011 (4991 posts) -

It was terrible, the villain was awful both of them. Why did Electro want to kill Spider-man? He adored him then in like 2 seconds he now wants to kill him. The action was pretty nice with great effects but everything else and i mean everything else was so boring.

#20 Posted by TheHT (11556 posts) -

Man, if Marvel Studios had Spider-Man and worked it into their cinematic universe, well, that'd be real cool. I could see Anton Yelchin as a good Peter Parker. Seems like he'd be a good fit with the other actors in those movies too. Garfield's Spider-Man is the most annoying I've seen.

#21 Posted by LiquidPrince (16032 posts) -

As a huge Spiderman fan, I can say that the movie was pretty good. I really liked it, but then again I am biased since Spiderman has been one of my favorite superheroes since I was a kid. Although, it was not really as good as Captain America 2, which was flat out amazing. That's a weird thing for me to say, because I wasn't a huge fan of Cap until recently.

Online
#22 Edited by PulledaBrad (612 posts) -

Presented without comment.

#23 Posted by RVonE (4672 posts) -

It should have ended at the scene right before that final bit. The scene where Peter is just standing there and the seasons change. If it faded to credits right there it would've been a more impactful ending, I think.

Oh, and I love Emma Stone.

#24 Posted by Quarters (1768 posts) -

Garfield and Stone had good chemistry. Some of the Electro fight stuff looked kind of cool. DeHaan might be a good Harry if he has a good script. Everything else...please. I'd take Raimi's movies any day of the week. At least there was a semblance of focus in those, or some kind of legit development that wasn't just poorly constructed setups for future movies, which I'm sure will be just as poorly paced. It's amazing that other people still can't get why Marvel Studios' stuff works as well as it does. Maybe someday. Or maybe they'll just get their other licenses back, and then the world will be good.

#25 Edited by TheAcidSkull (609 posts) -

@quarters said:

Garfield and Stone had good chemistry. Some of the Electro fight stuff looked kind of cool. DeHaan might be a good Harry if he has a good script. Everything else...please. I'd take Raimi's movies any day of the week. At least there was a semblance of focus in those, or some kind of legit development that wasn't just poorly constructed setups for future movies, which I'm sure will be just as poorly paced. It's amazing that other people still can't get why Marvel Studios' stuff works as well as it does. Maybe someday. Or maybe they'll just get their other licenses back, and then the world will be good.

Marvel studios just got back on it's feet thanks to captain america, Thor 2 was barely functional, and Iron man 3, while fun, was extremely mediocre and even at times laughable. The first phase was MUCH better than the second one, after avengers they faltered. The only reason they've been killing it money wise is thanks to their reputation.

Amazing spider-man 2, while not amazing( pun definitely intended :P), was a good movie, though far from perfect. Raimi's trilogy was decent/good. spider-man 2 was spectacular, spider-man one was okay/decent, and spider-man 3 was an abomination.

#26 Posted by JuggertrainUK (210 posts) -

Great action, goblin felt kind of rushed at the end. Looking forward to the next one.

#27 Posted by SSully (4240 posts) -

@quarters said:

Garfield and Stone had good chemistry. Some of the Electro fight stuff looked kind of cool. DeHaan might be a good Harry if he has a good script. Everything else...please. I'd take Raimi's movies any day of the week. At least there was a semblance of focus in those, or some kind of legit development that wasn't just poorly constructed setups for future movies, which I'm sure will be just as poorly paced. It's amazing that other people still can't get why Marvel Studios' stuff works as well as it does. Maybe someday. Or maybe they'll just get their other licenses back, and then the world will be good.

Marvel studios just got back on it's feet thanks to captain america, Thor 2 was barely functional, and Iron man 3, while fun, was extremely mediocre and even at times laughable. The first phase was MUCH better than the second one, after avengers they faltered. The only reason they've been killing it money wise is thanks to their reputation.

Amazing spider-man 2, while not amazing( pun definitely intended :P), was a good movie, though far from perfect. Raimi's trilogy was decent/good. spider-man 2 was spectacular, spider-man one was okay/decent, and spider-man 3 was an abomination.

You do know that you can't just act like Marvel was doing bad to make a point? All of the movies you listed were well reviewed and made bank.

Also it says a lot that you think ASM2 is a good movie, but Iron Man 3 is mediocre.

Online
#28 Edited by Whitestripes09 (418 posts) -

This one was pretty boring and some of it just didn't make any sense at all... like come on... All of JFK international losing power during a blackout? Even at a local airport they have emergency backup generators so a situation like in the movie doesn't happen. The best moments were definitely the most emotional ones between Peter, Gwen, and Aunt May compared to Harry who seems like he could be a good actor, but his lines were pretty laughable and the chemistry just didn't seem to be there between him and Peter. Jamie Foxx can be a good actor when he wants... This was not one of those movies.

Compared to Sam Raimi's original, these seem more kid friendly which shouldn't really be a problem, but when you have situations or lines that obviously appeal more to kids than adults... well it becomes quite boring and harder to watch.

#29 Posted by Quarters (1768 posts) -

@ssully said:

@theacidskull said:

@quarters said:

Garfield and Stone had good chemistry. Some of the Electro fight stuff looked kind of cool. DeHaan might be a good Harry if he has a good script. Everything else...please. I'd take Raimi's movies any day of the week. At least there was a semblance of focus in those, or some kind of legit development that wasn't just poorly constructed setups for future movies, which I'm sure will be just as poorly paced. It's amazing that other people still can't get why Marvel Studios' stuff works as well as it does. Maybe someday. Or maybe they'll just get their other licenses back, and then the world will be good.

Marvel studios just got back on it's feet thanks to captain america, Thor 2 was barely functional, and Iron man 3, while fun, was extremely mediocre and even at times laughable. The first phase was MUCH better than the second one, after avengers they faltered. The only reason they've been killing it money wise is thanks to their reputation.

Amazing spider-man 2, while not amazing( pun definitely intended :P), was a good movie, though far from perfect. Raimi's trilogy was decent/good. spider-man 2 was spectacular, spider-man one was okay/decent, and spider-man 3 was an abomination.

You do know that you can't just act like Marvel was doing bad to make a point? All of the movies you listed were well reviewed and made bank.

Also it says a lot that you think ASM2 is a good movie, but Iron Man 3 is mediocre.

Yeah, I actually might have liked IM3 the best out of the Iron Man movies. Thor 2 wasn't the greatest movie in the bunch, but it wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. It at least didn't feel like a rushed mess. I probably would've liked it more had I been more of a fan of Fantasy stuff(prefer Sci-Fi/Military/Whatever) in general. I feel like Phase 2 will probably end up being stronger by the end, unless Guardians of the Galaxy or Avengers 2 bone it up. Doesn't seem like it will.

However, the secret answer is that "All Hail the King" alone might usurp Phase 1. So good.

#30 Edited by TheAcidSkull (609 posts) -

@quarters: Trouble with thor 2 was that at a certain point, it felt less as a serious movie and more like a gag compilation, at least, that's the impression I was left with. But hey, opinions man, they differ. I'm glad you enjoyed Thor 2 and IM 3 more than I did :)

But Captain america 2 was a fucking beast!

@ssully said:

@theacidskull said:

@quarters said:

Garfield and Stone had good chemistry. Some of the Electro fight stuff looked kind of cool. DeHaan might be a good Harry if he has a good script. Everything else...please. I'd take Raimi's movies any day of the week. At least there was a semblance of focus in those, or some kind of legit development that wasn't just poorly constructed setups for future movies, which I'm sure will be just as poorly paced. It's amazing that other people still can't get why Marvel Studios' stuff works as well as it does. Maybe someday. Or maybe they'll just get their other licenses back, and then the world will be good.

Marvel studios just got back on it's feet thanks to captain america, Thor 2 was barely functional, and Iron man 3, while fun, was extremely mediocre and even at times laughable. The first phase was MUCH better than the second one, after avengers they faltered. The only reason they've been killing it money wise is thanks to their reputation.

Amazing spider-man 2, while not amazing( pun definitely intended :P), was a good movie, though far from perfect. Raimi's trilogy was decent/good. spider-man 2 was spectacular, spider-man one was okay/decent, and spider-man 3 was an abomination.

You do know that you can't just act like Marvel was doing bad to make a point? All of the movies you listed were well reviewed and made bank.

Also it says a lot that you think ASM2 is a good movie, but Iron Man 3 is mediocre.

ASM 2 at least made me care enough, albite it did have some cringe-worthy moments, whereas Iron man 3 and Thor 2 were basic gag compilations, nothing affected me at the very least. Marvel movies aren't supposed to be comedies, despite the fact that it should have some funny moments, granted they don't compromise the tone of whole goddamn film. and as I said, Marvel has a good thing going on because they gained a good reputation with the awesome Iron man 1, first avenger, Avengers, etc.

ASM 2 is getting a lot of money as well for it's opening week( was it in the UK? Can't remember), yet you believe that it's a bad movie, right? It's not that cut and dry. Like for example, Batman/Superman( or whatever it's going to be called) will probably be a success money wise, but there is a chance( don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to the movie) the movie could be an absolute abomination, but people will see it because...well it's fucking superman and batman...in ONE movie. Am I rambling? Or making sense? If it's former I'll try to elaborate more.

Either ways, glad you enjoyed Phase 2 more than I did.

#31 Edited by Slaps2 (301 posts) -

I didn't see the second, but for what it's worth, I thought the first one was terrible.

#32 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5804 posts) -

Pretty good movie, the lack of Tobey Maguire makes it inherently superior to the other films as always; as unless he's playing a worthless piece of shit (e.g. The Great Gatsby) he's not a very interesting actor. Times Square scene was great; Harry sucked ass, Giamatti is awesome.

#33 Edited by SSully (4240 posts) -

@quarters: Trouble with thor 2 was that at a certain point, it felt less as a serious movie and more like a gag compilation, at least, that's the impression I was left with. But hey, opinions man, they differ. I'm glad you enjoyed Thor 2 and IM 3 more than I did :)

But Captain america 2 was a fucking beast!

@ssully said:

@theacidskull said:

@quarters said:

Garfield and Stone had good chemistry. Some of the Electro fight stuff looked kind of cool. DeHaan might be a good Harry if he has a good script. Everything else...please. I'd take Raimi's movies any day of the week. At least there was a semblance of focus in those, or some kind of legit development that wasn't just poorly constructed setups for future movies, which I'm sure will be just as poorly paced. It's amazing that other people still can't get why Marvel Studios' stuff works as well as it does. Maybe someday. Or maybe they'll just get their other licenses back, and then the world will be good.

Marvel studios just got back on it's feet thanks to captain america, Thor 2 was barely functional, and Iron man 3, while fun, was extremely mediocre and even at times laughable. The first phase was MUCH better than the second one, after avengers they faltered. The only reason they've been killing it money wise is thanks to their reputation.

Amazing spider-man 2, while not amazing( pun definitely intended :P), was a good movie, though far from perfect. Raimi's trilogy was decent/good. spider-man 2 was spectacular, spider-man one was okay/decent, and spider-man 3 was an abomination.

You do know that you can't just act like Marvel was doing bad to make a point? All of the movies you listed were well reviewed and made bank.

Also it says a lot that you think ASM2 is a good movie, but Iron Man 3 is mediocre.

ASM 2 at least made me care enough, albite it did have some cringe-worthy moments, whereas Iron man 3 and Thor 2 were basic gag compilations, nothing affected me at the very least. Marvel movies aren't supposed to be comedies, despite the fact that it should have some funny moments, granted they don't compromise the tone of whole goddamn film. and as I said, Marvel has a good thing going on because they gained a good reputation with the awesome Iron man 1, first avenger, Avengers, etc.

ASM 2 is getting a lot of money as well for it's opening week( was it in the UK? Can't remember), yet you believe that it's a bad movie, right? It's not that cut and dry. Like for example, Batman/Superman( or whatever it's going to be called) will probably be a success money wise, but there is a chance( don't get me wrong, I'm looking forward to the movie) the movie could be an absolute abomination, but people will see it because...well it's fucking superman and batman...in ONE movie. Am I rambling? Or making sense? If it's former I'll try to elaborate more.

Either ways, glad you enjoyed Phase 2 more than I did.

Maybe this is just a classic situation of "everyone has their own opinions". I loved Iron Man 3 because I thought it did such a great job portraying a post-Avengers Tony Stark. There were still plenty of Stark antics and other funny bits, but Tony was clearly someone struggling to reconcile with a traumatic event in his life. As for Thor 2 I enjoyed the film, but it wasn't anything special. I just love Asgard and the weirdness of it all.

I feel like you are inferring that I attributed a films quality based on how much money it makes; I didn't. I referenced Marvels movies making bank(and getting good reviews) because you suggested that they were down. At the time I wasn't sure if you meant literally(financially) or just that you thought they failed to deliver movies you enjoyed(I now believe this was what you originally meant). I believe ASM2 is a bad movie entirely on the fact that it is an incoherent mess, which is unsurprising since the film is written by the people who wrote transformers 2. This review aligns with my beliefs for the most part.

Also it's incredibly rare for a big blockbuster movie to do poorly these days. They literally have so much money dumped into them that they have to be an abomination to fail. The most recent example I can think of it Lone Ranger, which still ended up doing good because of the international market. I have no opinion on the upcoming Supes Vs Batman movie, but its another case of a movie that simply cannot fail.

Online
#34 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11337 posts) -

It was okay. The story wasn't good, but the action was. There just wasn't enough of it.

Moderator
#35 Edited by CollegeGuyMike (390 posts) -

I give it an Okay/5.

#36 Posted by AltonBrown (951 posts) -

When's the Doctor Strange movie?

#37 Edited by crithon (3347 posts) -

I've been looking forward to it as a Spidey fan, but I got sick this weekend and the idea of sitting in a theater for 2 hours would make me sick. Yeah, keep reading the bad reviews, I bet I will enjoy it out of denial.

#38 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5804 posts) -
#39 Posted by OTTO14 (18 posts) -

Might be the best looking movie I have ever seen just saw it in imax 3D

#40 Edited by I_Stay_Puft (3599 posts) -

I think its time to move on from Marc Webb and whoever is penning the script. I thought the film failed at showing the relationship between Peter and Harry which made for the lackluster ending. If you let the relationship take its course in several films like the last trilogy then sure the fight and subsequent death makes sense. To me however it seemed like a failed rushed attempt to push for the sinister six.

Also did it seem to you that the whole parent side story was just a way for them to wrap it up and not have to talk about it anymore? Thought they couldn't find a way to use the parents anymore so they decided to scrap it by finishing it in some way. This movie did not have to be 2 hours and 33 minutes.

Also if you guys didn't know Marc Webb supposedly cut all of Shailene Woodley's portrayal of Mary Jane Watson in this film because she was so much hotter than Emma Stone that it might take away from the film. Seriously that was his excuse? I think Shailene Woodley is a great actress I just think Marc Webb got cold feet on her as Mary Jane Watson.

Just read @donchipotle post and couldn't agree more with everything said. This movie was all out terrible especially for a pop culture character like Spiderman. Hey Sony you know what you could do to spice things up, why not tell the tale of Miles Morales?

#41 Edited by crithon (3347 posts) -
#42 Posted by RonGalaxy (3230 posts) -

I haven't seen it, but I thought the first one (meaning the first Amazing Spiderman) was supremely middling. Garfield and Stone have great chemistry, yaddah yaddah, but the rest of the movie felt so empty and by the numbers. I wish I lived in an alternate universe where the original spiderman movies directed by Sam Raimi featured Garfield and Stone instead of Maguire and Dunst. Though, Maguire and Dunst did a good job as well, I just prefer the other 2.

Side note: Spiderman 1+2 are still my favorite superhero movies (over the avengers, the dark knight, whatever).

#43 Posted by Gaff (1815 posts) -

@i_stay_puft:

I think cutting MJ was probably the best decision considering there are already way too many plot threads in the damn movie. That's a more likely reason.

#44 Posted by drstrawberry (108 posts) -

Can I judge this based solely on the trailer? I steadfastly refuse to see the film

#45 Posted by I_Stay_Puft (3599 posts) -

@gaff said:

@i_stay_puft:

I think cutting MJ was probably the best decision considering there are already way too many plot threads in the damn movie. That's a more likely reason.

Probably but from what I've read her part was at most a cameo appearance to set her up in the third film. Like a wave and hi to Peter as he walks by her house.

#46 Posted by TheHT (11556 posts) -

@narujoe93: Yeah, Spider-Man 2 easily ranks high up on my list of favourite super-hero movies.

#47 Edited by awesomeusername (4225 posts) -


Also if you guys didn't know Marc Webb supposedly cut all of Shailene Woodley's portrayal of Mary Jane Watson in this film because she was so much hotter than Emma Stone that it might take away from the film. Seriously that was his excuse? I think Shailene Woodley is a great actress I just think Marc Webb got cold feet on her as Mary Jane Watson.

From what I've read/heard, they actually shot her parts and she finished filming but then it was cut out because they wanted to save her for 3. Then she got the lead role for the book turned movie Divergent and it's becoming a trilogy so she had to move on/they had to cut her. Also, she is NOT hotter then Emma Stone.

#48 Posted by falserelic (5476 posts) -

Didn't know you wanted people's thoughts about the movie, but luckily I've seen it and I thought it was boring. I honestly thought it was worst then the first film.

#49 Posted by ottoman673 (542 posts) -

Wow, I'm apparently part of the minority that liked this movie. I much prefer Garfield over Maguire, and I liked the chemistry between him and Stone. The action bits with electro were solid, too. Foxx did a good job of selling that he was a bit socially awkward, and his transition to being evil was believable.

My only issues came with how Harry was portrayed. His friendship with Peter almost felt forced, and lacked any real context. (without knowledge of the story, anyway.) his transition into becoming the Goblin didn't get enough time, either, although I don't think we've seen the last of him.

Also, whoever cast this version of Aunt May did a really terrible job, I find her annoying at best.

#50 Posted by Silver-Streak (1371 posts) -

I enjoyed the movie a lot. While I still would really want to see Marvel Studios make a Spider-Man film, I do not mind getting 2 more of the "Amazing" series.

I feel Andrew Garfield is much better as Peter Parker than Tobey Maguire was. (Peter Parker should be jokey, not mopey). The final act was a bit rushed, but overall it was enjoyable. I was actually very surprised at how well they did Electro. To the point where the movie version of Electro is probably much better than either comic version of him.