Have to agree, I really liked those little things they had spidey doing to help people.

 

Well some people can go fuck themselves. Why even watch movies if you're just going to let everyone else in the world decide for you if it was good or not?

The very fact that it has a lower score than Spiderman 3 just reaffirms that the Reddit and Tumblr crowd wouldn't understand a good movie or video game if it shoved an uncomfortably large spandex crotch bulge in their faces and pelvic-thrusted it's way to AAA status with advertising alone.

I have a friend who actually won't even go see it. Why? Because Movie Bob said it was bad. Guess what? I saw his review, and I also saw the movie, and Movie Bob can go suck a necrotic donkey dick. All of his critiques of it are off point. Panning it because it had too many references to characters that obviously wouldn't come up until a different movie? I'm sorry, how is it bad that Felicia cameo'd as a secretary? The movie had fuckups, sure. There was stilted dialogue, some questionable pushes in the plot. Some points where Peter did some out of character stuff because it was necessary to continue the story. But if you're going to pan the movie, at least harp on the actual fucking flaws. Don't sit there in a fucking chair in front of your computer and make shit up to be mad about.

"It was a bad movie because a significant portion of it obviously only existed to set up the next few movies in the series."

And yet somehow I didn't hear you complain about that when you reviewed Thor Dark World or Winter Soldier, Movie Bob. Funny how that works.

Why would you ever let internet celebrities influence what you think is good? They're literally no better than you are. Most of them are quite a bit worse.

I thought it was a good movie. Not perfect. It had flaws and mistakes. But it was solid. They nailed the Spiderman vibe 100% and without question, which automatically makes it better than any of the Toby McGuire movies, where the entire series seemed to struggle with understanding what Spiderman is supposed to be and act like. At the very worst, it was a 7/10. I'd argue it was a full eight just on Shocker and the balls-out adherence to Gwen's death. I was almost certain they'd puss out on that. Put her in a coma or something. Not only did they kill her, they buried her for five months just to make it clear that she isn't coming back.

In no way does it deserve any less of a score than what any of the first three got. It's better than all of them put together, not that that's admittedly hard. Rotten Tomatoes, Movie Bob, and every other YouTube celebrity and stay-at-home wannabe-journalist can eat a dick.

Also, since somebody else decided they wanted to bring it up:

Man of Steel is in the top three best portrayals of Superman we've gotten in the last fifteen years. Maybe the last twenty.

Grant you, that's because it's a normal person that showed up to the Special Olympics through some sort of clerical error, but still. The fact remains.

 

Is there some connection between the Rotten Tomatoes score and a couple different internet communities that I'm missing, here?

 

It was a god-awful movie. The only movie I saw in 2014 that was worse was Hercules, and even then I had my chuckles. Spider-man 2 had nothing. No plot, no action (30 minutes tops, in a 2+ hour movie, and that includes the beginning airplane sequence), no dialogue worth remembering, no acting. Or at least, it was rudimentary.

Electro's theme was good, I'll give you that. Bold move from Zimmer. But other than that? Zero. Its humor was worse than the Transformers, its awkward moments surpassed Spider-man 3's dancing scenes, we barely saw the other two promised villains and when I did, I wish I hadn't because their design was horrendous.

And it's a shame, too, because the trailed was so promising. But then again, I said the same thing about Dark Knight Rises. Don't know what else to tell you, except warn you to don't pay for it and DL it.

Oh, and the whole subplot with Harry losing his CEO status because the old guy said so? Jesus, stop making superhero movies exclusively for ten year old children. Then again, Amazing Spiderman 2 came to us by the writers of Transformers and Star Trek.

What's worse, the movie sold so good they just announced Amazing Spider Man 4. :facepalm

 

The movie was fairly decent.

The special effects scenes were excellent, and I liked Andrew Garfield's performance -how he interpreted Spidey more as a post-teenager than a superhero-, as well as Jamie Foxx in Electro's role.

The schoolboy humour is terribad though.

The story feels a bit shaky at times, but it succeeds where Sam Raimi's trilogy failed IMO : it focuses more on Peter Parker's misfortunes than Spider Man's.

As such, it can be too melodramatic for some viewers, which is probably why some critics disliked this movie.

Anyways, 6/10.


Edit :

Sizdothyx, I think there are some anti-warez rules

 

I liked it. Garfield is miles better than Maquire at playing Spider-man. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly think it was worse than Spider-man 3.

 

I'm going to have to stop you here and remind you that Transformers humor involves rapping ghetto Transformers and Shia LaBeouf acting like a manchild because between scenes where he's driving his brand new million-dollar car, being best friends with Optimus Prime, and going on dates with his supermodel girlfriend, life is really giving him some trouble.

I don't know what precisely your problem is with the movie, but if you really think it was worse than Transformers in literally any area whatsoever besides volume of explosions-per-second, you've either suffered some sort of horrific brain trauma, in which case my condolences, or you have somehow completely forgotten how truly rotten the Transformers movies were, in which case the SCP Foundation would like a word with you about amnesiac techniques.

Transformers was bad enough that the next movie will involve giant robot dinosaurs fighting each other, and I am seriously considering not going.

 

Nah, you're right. I'm maybe too harsh on the movie. Transformers (2+3) are definitely worse.

However, I'm specifically talking about Spiderman 2 supposed 'humor'. I will get back on track and not dissolve this thread into a 'which movie is worse' (anything by Michael Bay and Uwe Boll, but that's not the point).

In sort, I'm really disappointed with Spiderman 2 because I don't think it did justice to any of its characters. Sure, it might have had some top-notch effects, but I want to go to see a superhero movie (especially one I pay for) and have it inspire me, you know? Batman is about harnessing your fears, Superman about doing the right thing even if you don't owe anyone anything, etc. Spiderman (all 5 of its movies, admittedly) teaches us how to horribly deal with your girlfriend - badly.

Spoiler

Green Goblin was on screen for less than 5 minutes! He's Spiderman's iconic villain, and he was dismissed in favor of... I don't know why they dismissed him, actually. Like I said, disappointing.

I'm not certain on what you mean about the anti-warez rules. Do you mean in general or DLP in particular?

Anyway, I'll stop here. I think I was vehement enough.

 

I hear that the six will be seen, but any news on if the symbiote will show up? I liked the idea of it being an alien, but the man made version is pretty cool as well. Also, with all the mad science oscorp is dooing, the symbiote is a definite possibility.

 

I've always thought Peter Parker's humour was supposed to be a mix of terribad jokes/witty banter. I chuckled at some of it and if there's any problems character wise, I would say it was more to do with bad scripting than bad characterisation by the actors.

Garfield and Stone portray a nice modern take on Gwen and Peter. The characters are obviously different because their storyline is not the same as the comics. Gwen was more prideful in her looks and her scientific abilities were not highlighted as much in the comics.

I think that this series of Spider-Man films have respected the source material whilst not just being a translation to screen rehash of the comics.

 

Just saw it and thought it was great, even if some people have brought up decent points about flaws. The humorous dialogue definitely seemed more like Spiderman than not, not necessarily funny jokes, but stuff that would piss off the likes of Jamie Foxx's Electro? Sure.

The romance aspect was overwrought, but again that seems pretty in keeping with Spiderman and really a lot of hero's; the things they handle poorly are usually mismanaged to extents that stretch suspension of disbelief but they've got superpowers so it's whatever.

I didn't expect to like Foxx in this movie or DeHaan's Osborne, but their performances were a pleasant surprise. 8/10, definitely worth a watch.

 

I thought the writing was spectacularly awful and I don't understand why those two writers still have jobs. The movie would have been ten times more entertaining if the conflicts had been deeper, the dialog less awkward, and there been an actual plotline.

But I didn't fall asleep. And it had a few good scenes, so it wasn't a total bust.