Rate the Last Movie You Saw

[srboone]

SAme here. The wolves were unrealistic, but the wolves weren't the point. How each man faced death was. A truly terrific film. And great insight into Neeson's performance.

[srboone]

The Amazing Spiderman: Let's call this one The Pretty Good Spiderman. Andrew Garfield's angsty take on Peter Parker, Martin Sheen's terrific performance in the year's most thankless role, and one great scene involving a a burning car are really the only standout elements of this remake/reboot (however you wish to view it). Where Tobey Maquire played Peter Parker with a charming clutziness, Garfield's Parker is a man in the grip of raging hormones mixed with his newfound abilities. That in itself justifies makiing the movie; however, it means that Garfield only hits the bullseye as Parker when he and co-star Emma Stone are on screen together. Those are moments when ASP really clicks. The special effects are really good, but are made unmemorable by some truly UN-amazing 3D effects. (My advice is to see it in 2D.) The first hour is a retread of the 2002 film with the new element of Parker's search for his father. Even when Spidey swings into action for the 2nd half, an overpowering sense of deja vu hangs over the whole affair. And that's the biggest problem with ASP--the original film is still fresh in the minds of many movie goers and that makes this new Spideman unnecessary. Only Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben stands out in the supporting cast; and he is replacing Cliff Robertson as the major plot point in the film (talk about thankless). Garfield shows promise as Spidey; Emma Stone is NOT the girl next door; Sally Field is...Sally Field, I don't even think she's functioning in the same movie; Dennis Leary phoned in his Detective Stacy performance, and the list goes on.

The first one had a great Peter Parker and a Spiderman lost in a sea of questionable special effects; This one has a great Spiderman, but a so-so Parker; ASP has the better special effects; but the original was better written and had better supporting characters (particulary Aunt May and MJ). I prefer the 2002 film over this one.

ASP: 3.5/5
SP: 4/5

Sidenote: Where's J. Jonah Jameson? I really missed J.K. Simmons...

[Teriw]

In my opinion your review doesn't coincide with your 3.5/5. Its your rating of course but a 3.5 sounds like someone who really or at least somewhat enjoyed the movie but your review sounds like you pretty well hated everything about it except Garfield.

[srboone]

Not at all, the great scene with the burning car made up for a lot (the 2002 film didn't have any scene I'd classify as great)--one great scene can add up to a full star onto a rating (here I credited ASP 1/2 star). The effects were really good, just not the 3d effects. And the scenes with Stone and Garfield were terrific. I enjoyed the movie, it's just that I kept thinking I'd seen this one before. And I had--back in 2002.

[Teriw]

I'd still prefer to see Magic Mike but I believe this Tuesday will be Spiderman. I have mostly heard it was AMAZING, as the title kinda suggests anyway. The woman in me wants to watch Channing Tatum and Matthew Mcconaughey dance. lol

[srboone]

Well, I'm sure I'll go see MM eventually. I really like the director Steve Soderberg--I've seen all his movies. I guess I'll go see that one too--probably in its last week.

[Teriw]

around here we never know when something will be gone or bumped to the smaller rooms (no stadium seating, uncomfortable seats.) if we can't see it right away we r liekly not gonna til we can download a decent copy. Might get lucky and itll play at the drive in with a kids movie we haven't seen yet like Brave or Madagascar. Then we'd see it there.

[Teriw]

Personally i'd put of spiderman til the next week. It'll still be playing in stadium for sure. I'd see Magic Mike tuesday then spiderman the 17th, then the dark night the 24th. But it'll be up to Mason, I generally leave it up to him cuz he pays but Magic Mike this week (supposed to be) he agreed on cuz it was that or abe...which we ended up seeing anyway. Magic Mike looks good to me anyway regardless of the half naked men so I dont know why more men don't want to see it to be honest.

[srboone]

That's just it. It does look like a good movie. It's about male strippers, but anybody who watched a lot of movies from the 80s knows that you had to put up with a lot of gratuituous bare male ass and the occassional male frontal shots in them; and from what I hear MM is just a bunch of beefcake in g-strings--that was in 75% of 80's movies. Soderberg has a penchant for making genre movies that don't do anything groundbreaking and making them seem fresh. So I guess Magic Mike is probably the best male stripper film that $7M can buy. Besides, something tells me that Mathew McConahey has been waiting his whole professional career for his chance to play a narsaccistic, manipulative, sadistic strip club owner/manager.

I'm sure I'll be posting a review of it sometime.

[Lou Sytsma]

The Amazing Spiderman - really enjoyed this one. The origin story is changed enough to make it fresh - though the more familiar version done by Raimi resonates more emotionally.

Garfield is fantastic as Peter Parker. Emma Stone is too as Gwen Stacy - and thankfully Gwen is not cast in the damsel in distress role but actively contributes to the resolution of the climax. Their scenes together really spark.

This movie is really well cast with Martin Sheen, Denis Leary, and Rhys Ifans putting in good to great work. Sally Fields does not get much to do but I suspect that her turn is yet to come.

As much as I enjoyed Garfield's turn as Parker, the advances in SFX since the last Raimi Spidey flick captured Spidey's full range of abilities for the first time. Not only are the web swinging scenes exhilarating but his speed and agility is displayed too. All done with a sense of weight and inertia not possible apparently with the previous trilogy. There is one fight scene in the school corridor that really displays this beautifully. The Lizard SFX were dodgy at times but never took me out of the movie because by the point I was into the characters and story.

I really, really like this one. Place it behind Spidey 2 for now. Need time to let it settle in my mind before rendering a final verdict.

Liked it enough to be seeing it a second time on Saturday - this time in UltraAVX. Can't wait to see this on in a better viewing environment.

Finally, this one left me anticipating the sequel - always a good sign.

On another note, our Cineplex chain is running a series of movies voted on by the fans during Mondays this summer. On July 30th, they are screening The Wrath of Khan! Taking my 11 year old son to see it. Really looking forward to it.

[Dan Hocker]

The Amazing Spiderman: Let's call this one The Pretty Good Spiderman. Andrew Garfield's angsty take on Peter Parker, Martin Sheen's terrific performance in the year's most thankless role, and one great scene involving a a burning car are really the only standout elements of this remake/reboot (however you wish to view it). Where Tobey Maquire played Peter Parker with a charming clutziness, Garfield's Parker is a man in the grip of raging hormones mixed with his newfound abilities. That in itself justifies makiing the movie; however, it means that Garfield only hits the bullseye as Parker when he and co-star Emma Stone are on screen together. Those are moments when ASP really clicks. The special effects are really good, but are made unmemorable by some truly UN-amazing 3D effects. (My advice is to see it in 2D.) The first hour is a retread of the 2002 film with the new element of Parker's search for his father. Even when Spidey swings into action for the 2nd half, an overpowering sense of deja vu hangs over the whole affair. And that's the biggest problem with ASP--the original film is still fresh in the minds of many movie goers and that makes this new Spideman unnecessary. Only Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben stands out in the supporting cast; and he is replacing Cliff Robertson as the major plot point in the film (talk about thankless). Garfield shows promise as Spidey; Emma Stone is NOT the girl next door; Sally Field is...Sally Field, I don't even think she's functioning in the same movie; Dennis Leary phoned in his Detective Stacy performance, and the list goes on.

The first one had a great Peter Parker and a Spiderman lost in a sea of questionable special effects; This one has a great Spiderman, but a so-so Parker; ASP has the better special effects; but the original was better written and had better supporting characters (particulary Aunt May and MJ). I prefer the 2002 film over this one.

ASP: 3.5/5
SP: 4/5

Sidenote: Where's J. Jonah Jameson? I really missed J.K. Simmons...

I haven't seen it yet, but just going from your review I take it you really liked the last set of Spiderman movies. Where I think I'll love this one as I didn't really care for the last set of Spiderman movies that much, and really couldn't stand Toby Maquire as Peter Parker, nor how they wrote Peter Parker's character in the movie. In the original one's they wrote Peter as a "Emo" college student with hardly any self esteem. From what I understand about this one they wrote him as more of what he was in the cartoon series as well as the comics. The only term I really know for it is a "Troll" in the internet sense.



On a side note I'm hoping to see either this or Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter this weekend.

[srboone]

I realize I'm in the minority with this one, but I don't read the comics so I can't review it on that level. I respond to writing and acting in movies as well as honest emotion during them. The 2002 film left me feeling drained from an exciting movie experience. I only felt a surge of excitement in ASP from one scene (the flaming vehicle rescue). I identified with PP more in the 2002 film than ASP and I appreciate Raimi's tongue-in-cheek self-referential sense of humor. I understand that Marvel is on a roll and needs to keep the market flooded with adaptations, but 2012 was too soon, I think. Anyway, ASP was much better than Spiderman III.

[Dan Hocker]

I realize I'm in the minority with this one, but I don't read the comics so I can't review it on that level. I respond to writing and acting in movies as well as honest emotion during them. The 2002 film left me feeling drained from an exciting movie experience. I only felt a surge of excitement in ASP from one scene (the flaming vehicle rescue). I identified with PP more in the 2002 film than ASP and I appreciate Raimi's tongue-in-cheek self-referential sense of humor. I understand that Marvel is on a roll and needs to keep the market flooded with adaptations, but 2012 was too soon, I think. Anyway, ASP was much better than Spiderman III.

I'm hard pressed to think a "Superhero" movie that was worse than Spiderman III. Like you I don't know much about the comics, but I grew up with the 90's cartoon series which is what I really have to relate to. Though I haven't seen the movie yet so who knows maybe I'll hate it. Though I do think this is one where if you're a lover of "Special Features" on dvd's that you'll want to get the dvd for. As I understand it they did a surprising amount of the "stunts" live action instead of CGI, with some really cool rigs to make the "web slinging" seamless.

[srboone]

Yeah, but some of the climbs and jumps looked hokey, something else that looked wrong about the movie. That's what CGI does to your brain--everything has to be perfect or it's flawed. I won't be getting this one on Bluray, tho.

[Teriw]

On a side note I'm hoping to see either this or Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter this weekend.

Dont bother with Abe. Seriously EXTREMELY disapointed, and I wasn't even expecting much in the first place. as squire said, you'll wish you had your two hours back. Horrible use of 3D and everything seemed blurry.