I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

The various goblins need to be banned for life from Spider-Man movies.  This is getting annoying.  Like the inability to have a modern Superman movie without Lex Luthor, or an X-Men movie without Magneto.  There are so many other, better-written villains available.

HotWingAgenda: The various goblins need to be banned for life from Spider-Man movies.  This is getting annoying.  Like the inability to have a modern Superman movie without Lex Luthor, or an X-Men movie without Magneto.  There are so many other, better-written villains available.

Spiders and goblins are natural foes, like bats and clowns, or red and gorillas.

It's going to be awkward when Marvel has Norman Osborn as the villain in Iron Man 3 first.....

Notice: Trying to get property of non-object in /var/www/sites/variety.com/2013-02-14.9/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 29
Variety

Subscribe Today!


Navigation Menu
Film
TV
Digital
Voices
Video
Events
Vscore
PMC
|
Sign In|

Epic 404 - Article Not Found

The article you were looking for was not found, but maybe try looking again!


This is the 404.php template.

Fascinating.

Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

I liked it better than the previous efforts overall. That's a fairly low bar to clear.

Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

You haven't been looking hard enough.

The most recent one holds 73% critics and 81% audience on rottentomatoes.com.

First Raimi Spiderman-89%/65%
Second Raimi-93%/81%.

So audience-wise, it's right in the ballpark. A lot of people that say they didn't like it are hating for the sake of hating. I've heard people hating it because Sony owns the rights (true but has nothing to do with the movie itself) to Andrew Garfield not being a good Spiderman/Peter Parker (which is nonsense. If anything, he was a much better Peter Parker than Toby Maguire). People also don't like it because it was too soon for a reboot, which is true, but still doesn't affect the movie itself.
Spiderman was actually funny in the most recent movie. He mocked his enemies several times, which is what he does historically. The fight scenes felt more fluid than Raimi's movies most of the time as well.

The movie certainly wasn't without it's flaws. It dragged at times. The CGI for Lizard wasn't bad per se, he just ended up looking like one of the goombas from that bad early 90's Super Mario Bros movie.

I suggest people rewatch the first two Raimi ones again. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming. There's nothing particularly enticing about Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

wholedamnshow: Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

You haven't been looking hard enough.

The most recent one holds 73% critics and 81% audience on rottentomatoes.com.

First Raimi Spiderman-89%/65%
Second Raimi-93%/81%.

So audience-wise, it's right in the ballpark. A lot of people that say they didn't like it are hating for the sake of hating. I've heard people hating it because Sony owns the rights (true but has nothing to do with the movie itself) to Andrew Garfield not being a good Spiderman/Peter Parker (which is nonsense. If anything, he was a much better Peter Parker than Toby Maguire). People also don't like it because it was too soon for a reboot, which is true, but still doesn't affect the movie itself.
Spiderman was actually funny in the most recent movie. He mocked his enemies several times, which is what he does historically. The fight scenes felt more fluid than Raimi's movies most of the time as well.

The movie certainly wasn't without it's flaws. It dragged at times. The CGI for Lizard wasn't bad per se, he just ended up looking like one of the goombas from that bad early 90's Super Mario Bros movie.

I suggest people rewatch the first two Raimi ones again. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming. There's nothing particularly enticing about Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Everything I need to know about that movie, I got from this video.

Paul Giamatti's in it?  Okay, I might go see it.

wholedamnshow: You haven't been looking hard enough.

Hey I'm not hating; I haven't even seen it, it might be the next Casablanca for all I know. I'm just saying everyone I know IRL who did see it said it was just a lazy, dull cash-in.

And the first to Raimi films were fantastic, BTW. Great direction, excellent pacing, excellent villians. Tobey was awkward in number 3, but he plays a great Peter Parker in the first two, even if his Spider-man is a bit lacking in humor. You'll note the critical reception for those was a lot better than for this one (and I generally don't trust audience polls; easy to rig, often vulnerable to hype).

I only saw the first Rami Spider Man.. and was underwhelmed.  Peter was boring, and the Green Goblin wasn't green skinned, but wore crappy armor?  Let down.

I thought the last movie looked somewhat better, but I have a coworker who hated it, and she loves the Marvel Studios movies.

HotWingAgenda: wholedamnshow: Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

You haven't been looking hard enough.

The most recent one holds 73% critics and 81% audience on rottentomatoes.com.

First Raimi Spiderman-89%/65%
Second Raimi-93%/81%.

So audience-wise, it's right in the ballpark. A lot of people that say they didn't like it are hating for the sake of hating. I've heard people hating it because Sony owns the rights (true but has nothing to do with the movie itself) to Andrew Garfield not being a good Spiderman/Peter Parker (which is nonsense. If anything, he was a much better Peter Parker than Toby Maguire). People also don't like it because it was too soon for a reboot, which is true, but still doesn't affect the movie itself.
Spiderman was actually funny in the most recent movie. He mocked his enemies several times, which is what he does historically. The fight scenes felt more fluid than Raimi's movies most of the time as well.

The movie certainly wasn't without it's flaws. It dragged at times. The CGI for Lizard wasn't bad per se, he just ended up looking like one of the goombas from that bad early 90's Super Mario Bros movie.

I suggest people rewatch the first two Raimi ones again. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming. There's nothing particularly enticing about Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Everything I need to know about that movie, I got from this video.

LoL great video. Considering it was a reboot though, not sure why people are acting surprised that there are many similar scenes

Gunther: wholedamnshow: You haven't been looking hard enough.

Hey I'm not hating; I haven't even seen it, it might be the next Casablanca for all I know. I'm just saying everyone I know IRL who did see it said it was just a lazy, dull cash-in.

And the first to Raimi films were fantastic, BTW. Great direction, excellent pacing, excellent villians. Tobey was awkward in number 3, but he plays a great Peter Parker in the first two, even if his Spider-man is a bit lacking in humor. You'll note the critical reception for those was a lot better than for this one (and I generally don't trust audience polls; easy to rig, often vulnerable to hype).

I can agree with most of what you said, but I cannot agree with him being any better than average as Peter Parker in any of the movies. You say he was great even if he is lacking in humor, but that is such a large part of his character that leaving that stuff out is unforgivable to me.

debug: Paul Giamatti's in it?  Okay, I might go see it.

As long as he's not playing spiderman.

/count me as one of the ones that hasn't bothered with the latest beroot reboot, meh.

wholedamnshow: HotWingAgenda: wholedamnshow: Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

You haven't been looking hard enough.

The most recent one holds 73% critics and 81% audience on rottentomatoes.com.

First Raimi Spiderman-89%/65%
Second Raimi-93%/81%.

So audience-wise, it's right in the ballpark. A lot of people that say they didn't like it are hating for the sake of hating. I've heard people hating it because Sony owns the rights (true but has nothing to do with the movie itself) to Andrew Garfield not being a good Spiderman/Peter Parker (which is nonsense. If anything, he was a much better Peter Parker than Toby Maguire). People also don't like it because it was too soon for a reboot, which is true, but still doesn't affect the movie itself.
Spiderman was actually funny in the most recent movie. He mocked his enemies several times, which is what he does historically. The fight scenes felt more fluid than Raimi's movies most of the time as well.

The movie certainly wasn't without it's flaws. It dragged at times. The CGI for Lizard wasn't bad per se, he just ended up looking like one of the goombas from that bad early 90's Super Mario Bros movie.

I suggest people rewatch the first two Raimi ones again. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming. There's nothing particularly enticing about Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Everything I need to know about that movie, I got from this video.

LoL great video. Considering it was a reboot though, not sure why people are acting surprised that there are many similar scenes

I'm still trying to figure out how Gwen Stacey was only a High Schooler yet she had top secret clearance to one of the biggest corporations in the world.

baufan2005: I'm still trying to figure out how Gwen Stacey was only a High Schooler yet she had top secret clearance to one of the biggest corporations in the world.

Obviously it was because FARK YOU FOR ASKING!

That, and the dropped plot items halfway through, and Andrew Garfield sounds like he's working so hard to hide his accent.  Tobey worked as the shy dork, and I wish they had made Spidey's dialogue more snappy in his films, but I still prefer the older ones.

debug: Paul Giamatti's in it?  Okay, I might go see it.

But it also has Jamie Foxx.  Best acting that guy ever did is still from In Living Color.  Not sure how he manages to be in so many movies.  I suppose someone has to do the movies that Denzel refuses to do.  The guys who star in the straight to DVD/TV movies that Scy-Fy does have his acting ability beat hands down. Billed as an A lister, almost always drags the movie down to C list schlock. I suppose it explains why Tyler Perry seems so full of himself he has to add his name to everything when it's a nice way of saying "Don't confuse me for Jamie Foxx."

Along with Foxx's Electro and Giamatti's Rhino, Osborn would mark the third antagonist to join the sequel.

Three villains? Really?

/sounds like fail

wholedamnshow: I suggest people rewatch the first two Raimi ones again. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming. There's nothing particularly enticing about Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

pretty much all of this.  For some reason people put those movies on a pedestal even after the third one.  The cinematography is down right goofy, and watching spider man fight was like watching a zach snyder fight only the slow mo isn't caused by special effects.  ...MJ was still hot in the first one though.

wholedamnshow: Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming.

Exactly. Parker is supposed to be witty and funny, but Toby's version just couldn't pull it off. He came off as sad and constantly depressed.

wholedamnshow: Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Bold for effect. That woman is gorgeous, and is down to earth and funny from what I've heard.

I just really hope this movie doesn't try to cram too many villains in it at once. That was one of the many, many problems with the 3rd one. And when they finally do get to doing the symbiote and Venom, they actually do it right and give Parker the suit for more than 30 seconds, and give Venom more than a bathroom break's time of screen time.

thecpt: For some reason people put those movies on a pedestal even after the third one.

I'll give you two reasons:
Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina. Phenomenal actors.

thecpt: The cinematography is down right goofy

Well, it's a Raimi film.. have you seen any of his previous works? The first time I saw a quick minute of "Drag Me To Hell", I could tell exactly what the movie was and who directed it simply by watching one of the shots of the camera moving down the hallway.

RoxtarRyan: I'll give you two reasons:
Willem Dafoe and Alfred Molina. Phenomenal actors.

oh understood.  But even then the shots of Molina don't allow him to act, they were usually "look sad at tentacle" shots, or "become angry because tentacle looked at you."  It's like they went out for a Ferrari and they only drove it at 40mph. Dafoe was used pretty damn well though.

RoxtarRyan: Well, it's a Raimi film.. have you seen any of his previous works? The first time I saw a quick minute of "Drag Me To Hell", I could tell exactly what the movie was and who directed it simply by watching one of the shots of the camera moving down the hallway.

Yeah, I had the same exact thing happen to me.  I can't take him seriously, which is great for things like the Evil dead.  Not so much for a super hero trilogy.

thecpt: Yeah, I had the same exact thing happen to me. I can't take him seriously, which is great for things like the Evil dead. Not so much for a super hero trilogy.

Eh, I dunno.. I think Raimi did pretty well with the first two movies. They were enjoyable. It is easy now to look back after we've had monster blockbusters like the Avengers and the Batman trilogy, and say the original SM movies weren't good, but at the time, they were pretty well enjoyed by most people.

RoxtarRyan: wholedamnshow: Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming.

Exactly. Parker is supposed to be witty and funny, but Toby's version just couldn't pull it off. He came off as sad and constantly depressed.

wholedamnshow: Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Bold for effect. That woman is gorgeous, and is down to earth and funny from what I've heard.

I just really hope this movie doesn't try to cram too many villains in it at once. That was one of the many, many problems with the 3rd one. And when they finally do get to doing the symbiote and Venom, they actually do it right and give Parker the suit for more than 30 seconds, and give Venom more than a bathroom break's time of screen time.

It's not the amount of villains. I'd love to have a good Spider-Man movie with the Sinister Six. It's the movies having to show the villain's origins every. single. time.

What's wrong with, "Here's Electro, he's a real motherf*cker, watch out, Spidey!" and getting on with it?

verbaltoxin: RoxtarRyan: wholedamnshow: Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming.

Exactly. Parker is supposed to be witty and funny, but Toby's version just couldn't pull it off. He came off as sad and constantly depressed.

wholedamnshow: Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Bold for effect. That woman is gorgeous, and is down to earth and funny from what I've heard.

I just really hope this movie doesn't try to cram too many villains in it at once. That was one of the many, many problems with the 3rd one. And when they finally do get to doing the symbiote and Venom, they actually do it right and give Parker the suit for more than 30 seconds, and give Venom more than a bathroom break's time of screen time.

It's not the amount of villains. I'd love to have a good Spider-Man movie with the Sinister Six. It's the movies having to show the villain's origins every. single. time.

What's wrong with, "Here's Electro, he's a real motherf*cker, watch out, Spidey!" and getting on with it?

Remember when we never got to learn Darth Vader's origin?

Rev. Skarekroe: They should have cast this guy.

[encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com image 250x201]

Is his hair made out of wood?

verbaltoxin: It's the movies having to show the villain's origins every. single. time.

I think having a bit of background story is pretty nice. Otherwise, it is just a random guy who's pissed for no valid reason. If I wanted to watch a bunch of two-dimensional characters just beat on each other, I'd watch Transformers. ;)

wholedamnshow: Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?

You haven't been looking hard enough.

The most recent one holds 73% critics and 81% audience on rottentomatoes.com.

First Raimi Spiderman-89%/65%
Second Raimi-93%/81%.

So audience-wise, it's right in the ballpark. A lot of people that say they didn't like it are hating for the sake of hating. I've heard people hating it because Sony owns the rights (true but has nothing to do with the movie itself) to Andrew Garfield not being a good Spiderman/Peter Parker (which is nonsense. If anything, he was a much better Peter Parker than Toby Maguire). People also don't like it because it was too soon for a reboot, which is true, but still doesn't affect the movie itself.
Spiderman was actually funny in the most recent movie. He mocked his enemies several times, which is what he does historically. The fight scenes felt more fluid than Raimi's movies most of the time as well.

The movie certainly wasn't without it's flaws. It dragged at times. The CGI for Lizard wasn't bad per se, he just ended up looking like one of the goombas from that bad early 90's Super Mario Bros movie.

I suggest people rewatch the first two Raimi ones again. Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming. There's nothing particularly enticing about Mary Jane Watson. Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

I actually enjoyed the Amazing Spider-Man over the other trilogy due to Peter Parker's character. He shows off his genius, the one Toby Maguire never had, and the relationship is actually believable.

I really want them to make an Amazing Spider-Man 3, and to cast Tobey McGuire as Ben Riley.

Turbo comic nerd trolling.

wholedamnshow: Gunther: I haven't run into anyone who liked the first one. So far the best I've heard about it is "It's OK, but not as good as the first two Raimi ones".

Are Sony expecting to make any money of this one or are they just trying to keep the rights?


So audience-wise, it's right in the ballpark. A lot of people that say they didn't like it are hating for the sake of hating. I've heard people hating it because Sony owns the rights (true but has nothing to do with the movie itself) to Andrew Garfield not being a good Spiderman/Peter Parker (which is nonsense. If anything, he was a much better Peter Parker than Toby Maguire). People also don't like it because it was too soon for a reboot, which is true, but still doesn't affect the movie itself.

that's pretty much my thoughts too. I think had the Raimi films not come out so recently and the third Raimi film not left such a bad taste in the mouths of some, I think the Amazing Spiderman would've been much more widely accepted. I wasn't too keen on seeing the movie, but it was much better than expected and certainly deserves a lot less derision than, say, The Dark Knight Rises; now there's a film that deserves to be called out on its bullshiat.

RoxtarRyan: Eh, I dunno.. I think Raimi did pretty well with the first two movies. They were enjoyable. It is easy now to look back after we've had monster blockbusters like the Avengers and the Batman trilogy, and say the original SM movies weren't good, but at the time, they were pretty well enjoyed by most people.

I'm not saying they weren't good, I'm just saying they had problems that people seem to have forgotten about.

The spiderman reboot was a turd and a half. Everything they changed to be different they changed for the worse. The tone was wrong.

Seriously, the only thing they did right was the wisecracking Spidey.

RoxtarRyan: verbaltoxin: It's the movies having to show the villain's origins every. single. time.

I think having a bit of background story is pretty nice. Otherwise, it is just a random guy who's pissed for no valid reason. If I wanted to watch a bunch of two-dimensional characters just beat on each other, I'd watch Transformers. ;)

That's what a couple, spare lines of exposition are for though. We don't need 1/4 of the entire movie taken up by how Sandman got to be Sandman. We don't need whole scenes explaining Doctor Octopus' tentacles. A few lines or one scene of Spiderman doing research on the villain would explain that.

Looking at the Raimi trilogy, a huge portion of it is taken up by origin stories and detailed scenes showing how the villains got their powers. We didn't need that. Well-placed dialogue can do the job.

Plus these are comic book characters. There's literally 50-60 years of backstory already in print.

omeganuepsilon: debug: Paul Giamatti's in it?  Okay, I might go see it.

But it also has Jamie Foxx.  Best acting that guy ever did is still from In Living Color.  Not sure how he manages to be in so many movies.  I suppose someone has to do the movies that Denzel refuses to do.  The guys who star in the straight to DVD/TV movies that Scy-Fy does have his acting ability beat hands down. Billed as an A lister, almost always drags the movie down to C list schlock. I suppose it explains why Tyler Perry seems so full of himself he has to add his name to everything when it's a nice way of saying "Don't confuse me for Jamie Foxx."

I liked him in Django. Not as much as the other actors, but he did a good job. He also has an Academy Award for "Ray".

Ugh ... I wish I could go back in time and make Chris Cooper the villain in Raimi's original Spiderman. Willem DeFoe is annoying and creepy as hell. Chris Cooper is one amazing actor.

Hey, as long as he has the cornrows, I'm sold. Cooper can play a halfway decent pseudo-villain (Bourne 1)

fusillade762: Marc Webb will return to direct, with Avi Arad and Matt Tolmach producing the sequel, which is skedded to swing into theaters

F*ck you. It's shiat like that that makes me happy Variety is dying.

Sticks nix hick pix.

verbaltoxin: RoxtarRyan: wholedamnshow: Toby Maguire as Peter Parker is so farking awkward to watch that I feel embarrassed for him at times. He's not funny. He's not charming.

Exactly. Parker is supposed to be witty and funny, but Toby's version just couldn't pull it off. He came off as sad and constantly depressed.

wholedamnshow: Meanwhile, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is funny, pretty, and smart and the relationship works a hundred times better than the Raimi ones.

Bold for effect. That woman is gorgeous, and is down to earth and funny from what I've heard.

I just really hope this movie doesn't try to cram too many villains in it at once. That was one of the many, many problems with the 3rd one. And when they finally do get to doing the symbiote and Venom, they actually do it right and give Parker the suit for more than 30 seconds, and give Venom more than a bathroom break's time of screen time.

It's not the amount of villains. I'd love to have a good Spider-Man movie with the Sinister Six. It's the movies having to show the villain's origins every. single. time.

What's wrong with, "Here's Electro, he's a real motherf*cker, watch out, Spidey!" and getting on with it?

I think you can limit it to under five minutes of screen time, not spending most of the first half of the movie watching the villain's daughter sicken and then need a sudden infusion of money.