Amazing Spider-Man - Page 2

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/2/14 at 9:02pm

Maybe for the next sequel they'll put Amazing in quotations.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 5/4/14 at 10:37pm

This was just an okay movie. It dragged on for way too long and there was nothing about that really stood out in my opinion.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 5/5/14 at 12:53pm

I liked the movie more than I expected to. I thought the cast, other than Jamie Foxx, was excellent. The parents' backstory was unnecessary but I suppose they had to give Peter something to do. The chemistry between Emma and Andrew was very good (for obvious reasons). What I hated most was how the villains looked. They finally got Spidey's costume right this time but got the villains oh so wrong. If they can make a lizard character in the first one, how difficult would it have been to believe a roided-out Rhino or a true Green Goblin versus the Iron Man clones we got instead?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/5/14 at 3:16pm

I like Garfield and Stone a lot, and in these roles (I don't really understand the complaint above that the poster liked the Raimi films, but on the other hand Garfield is too old for Parker, when Tobey Maguire was nearly the exact same age, I believe.) But I agree with others that so far this reboot series has been nothing special--I like some performances, some moments, I guess it was nice for fans to finally see the infamous Gwen Stacey stuff on the big screen, but the films seem also lacking in focus.

Haven't these studios learned that having so many villains in a superhero movie is almost always a mistake (unless it's a team movie like X-Men.) The fact that I believe both the past two movies have had a lot of major stuff cut (Mary Jane, etc) seem to also show that they don't have a great focus. I admit, I was a fan of, at least the first two Raimi films and I think one of the issues simply is that I do think it was insanely too soon to do a reboot, although I understand Sony wanted to hold on to their sole major Marvel character and to get some of the crazy superhero money.

I saw the movie on a free pass. I liked some of the 3D, and I am not upset I saw it, but it just was largely a meh to me. That said I am very excited for X-Men Days of Future Past, so maybe I don't learn (but I also liked The Wolverine, especially the director's cut, a lot more than most people seemed to last year.)

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/8/14 at 4:57pm

Saw it in 3D yesterday. Both my wife and I enjoyed it.

The 3D did nothing and was not worth the extra cost . Truth be told the New 3D still cannot touch the old 3D of the 50's. I will be bypassing the 3D aspect in the future.

Disagree 're negative reaction to Foxx.Thought Electro was best part of the movie. Maybe I missed something but when did Spidey develop super strength? In one scene he held back a police car by himself.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/8/14 at 8:19pm

OK, 3D is often poorly used--few would disagree but...

"The 3D did nothing and was not worth the extra cost . Truth be told the New 3D still cannot touch the old 3D of the 50's. I will be bypassing the 3D aspect in the future. "

WHA? Having seen fully restored 3D theatrical showings of Creature from the Black Lagoon, Kiss Me Kate and Dial M for Murder... I repeat... What??

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/8/14 at 8:33pm

"I liked some of the 3D, and I am not upset I saw it, but it just was largely a meh to me."

And that's why he's not going to pay any more money to see crap in 3-D.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/8/14 at 9:07pm

Unless it's 50s 3D!

[SNAFU]

Posted: 5/8/14 at 11:53pm

Ummmm Roxy, he held up the Roosevelt Island Tram in the very first movie, in the second one he stopped a speeding subway train. Oh wait, you can't see me...

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/9/14 at 9:06am

3D is used for almost every big blockbuster whether it adds to it or not.

The 50's 3D actually had images jump out of the screen and in some cases had you ducking. Now it does not seem to add anything. It is also a bit of a rip off. Charge $4 to see it in 3D and than ask for the glasses back. You are basically paying $4 to rent the glasses. In the 50's they were free. Hell they even had flip on versions for those who wore glasses.

3D is falling out of favor with a lot of people and a lot of it has to do with the added $4 charge. 3D died originally as the studios were putting every 2 bit picture out in 3D. Hollywood never learns.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/9/14 at 2:36pm

Absolutely agreed it's oversaturated the market. I suspect this will start to change (apparently there already are less movies in 3D than a year or two back) for the reasons you give--especially all these post-process 3D where it's added *after*. That said, I don't think 3D should just make you duck--I loved it in Frozen, for example, because of the immersive depth it gave to the film.

My issue with 50s 3D is that it gives me a headache after an hour or so, and never seems to work that well.

Updated On: 5/9/14 at 02:36 PM