Well my friend told me he thinks I'll like it so I may consider when it comes out here on the 27th. At the very least it could be a great popcorn movie.

It is pretty much a masterpiece of popcorn cinema.

regarding "Man of Steel-"

I've said as much negative stuff towards this project as anyone else here. The early previews looked pretty damn bad and the production crew did not inspire confidence.


But... I surprisingly liked this.

The cast is expertly well done; Cavill manages to find the excellent balance between all powerful hero and home-grown mama's boy. Action scenes look great (if a little fast-paced) and music is good. But the story is hollow and stumbles quite a bit. I can see how some people wouldn't care for parts of this (particularly the ending).

I'd say the closet counterpart to this is probably Sam Raimi's Spider-Man film; blending or omitting several elements of the mythos but as a result building a mostly serviceable world.

Above all, I want to see more set in this universe, which is probably the best DC could ask for right now.

Man of Steel was pretty much everything I wanted from it. I can understand why people might think the early part drags, but personally it didn't do that for me at all. Not really understanding the criticisms of a lack of chemistry between Lois and Clark either, but there we go.

Great acting all around, action that put superhero films on a new level and plenty of potential for future stories. Possibly the most I've enjoyed a superhero film since Burton's Batman films.

For the first time ever I have been truly blown away by a Superman movie. Man of Steel is an incredible action packed movie that finally showcases the power of Superman and how much damage it can do to the environment around him. The movie is not perfect, as there could have been more plot to it, but it did not forget that it was a super hero movie first and foremost. In fact, I felt there were a lot of nods taken from J Michael Straczynski's Superman Earth One books that have been release over the last few years, which are some of the greatest Superman stories I have ever read. The music while it is not the precious John Williams score everyone has praised over the last 30 years, it is well done and fully fits the mood of what is going on on the screen. Zod is done exceptionally well, especially his back story that makes him something different than just the goon he was in the Reeves movies. Amy Adams turned out to be an excellent snarky Lois and Henry Cavil was incredible as Superman. Even the guy they got to play Professor Hamilton was done well. Outside of wanting a little bit more in the plot area, there are some weird editing choices that confused me a bit, but my biggest complaint is the lack of anything after the credits. Other than that minor nitpick, this is hands down the best Superman movie ever. I just hope that whatever DC plans in the future, they do it right and not jack it up. Overall, I give the movie a solid 8/10 and is easily tied with Star Trek as the best movie of the year.

Took a chance on something else new & rented The Amazing Spider-Man last night.

Good god, that was AwfuL.

Garfield plays the character as a pretty-boy douche, Aunt May & Uncle Ben are wasted, Lizard's motivation comes out of nowhere and gets no explanation, the web-shooters actually manage to make LESS sense than organic ones, and most of the fight sequences are horribly shot.


And there's three more of these coming?! Damn.

I actually really liked the Amazing Spider-Man.

I thought Garfield was a much truer Peter Parker and Spider-Man, even if the famous Spider-Man quips started to grate really quickly. And as far as CGI goes, I thought the action looked okay, no worse than anything else out there. I felt the relationship between Gwen and Peter was stronger than anything with Peter and MJ through three whole movies and just in general this film felt like it had more soul.

But yeah, the fact they took out the famous line from the film, and yet gave Uncle Ben even more focus in the narrative than the original trilogy did, was a really odd move. I also hated how the Lizard was just a Green Goblin retread from the first film.

I actually enjoyed Amazing Spider-Man more than the Avengers. Not necessarily because it was better (although it was VERY close), but with the Avengers I expected a great film. ASM on the other hand seemed to have all the odds against it and turned out to be an excellent film. I can't wait for the sequel.

Won't deny it made some odd choices with Uncle Ben, but I really liked Sally Field as Aunt May.

I actually preferred Amazing Spider-Man over the Raimi Spidey trilogy.

I felt that May and Ben were more like characters, and not constantly spouting exposition and (De)motivators for Peter. They felt like actual people.
(Also, I liked that Aunt May wasn't in her 80's. This lady is supposed to be close in relative age to Peter's mom, right? Why is she so much older than her (Pete's mom was designed to be in her early 30s when she showed up in the comics)?)

Garfield as the hipster douche Peter was annoying, I'll give you that, though.
I like the non-Organic Web shooters because organic ones are dumb, and I thought the fights were pretty fun.

The crane sequence was still stupid as all hell, though.

I thought the Avengers was terrible and is completely overrated.

I also think the first film from Raimi's trilogy is the only truly great one out of the three. With Number Two just being a retread of the first film without the perfect casting they had with Green Goblin and although three had some incredible action the story was a real mess and the first film of the three proved it could mix up a good story and good action perfectly, it's just an all round great movie and my favourite of the four. With ASM coming second.

I will DEFINITELY agreed with this, 2 is alright but is very overrated.

I think ASM is better though :D

I loved the Avengers :lol

And I felt Spider-Man 2 was the only film in the Raimi trilogy that was worth anything. The first one was just too dumb, the Green Goblin costume was crap, and the film and Tobey himself tried to pull the "Meek weakling" thing too hard.
3 was just terrible.

They're all terribly flawed, but I only really got enjoyment out of 2. The action was great, Peter wasn't doing the "I'm a little bitch" thing anymore, and I could just fast forward through 90% the Mary Jane scenes without missing anything plot worthy.

Oh yeah. I hated Mary Jane in the Raimi trilogy.

Like I say, I LOVED ASM and it did a lot of things way better, like I love how they handled Uncle Ben's death. But Green Goblin was just such a perfect villain that I don't think any villain has every lived up to him again in the movies and a superhero film will always struggle in my mind if it lacks a compelling villain.

That is the point though... The first superhero film after 9/11. It was supposed to be big, fun, sentimental, full of heart and uplifting. No one wanted any of that gritty shit back then and I still don't want it now. It's a shame that the pretentious Nolan films have left great films like Spider-Man tarred with words like 'dumb'.

It is a shame that Green Goblin's mask took away all of Defoe's emotion though.

I just thought 2 was a poor man's version of the first.

Really? I found Norman/Goblin was rather weak. His turn was too quick and his psychosis was too forced.

"Forced" is The Lizard's attitude in ASM. Goblin has Norman mostly functioning as a character before stuffing him into the hideous costume.

I thought he was perfectly cast and perfectly written. The only disappointment I had with him is in the post of mine above this one.

I thought Willem Dafoe was great as Osbourne. The Goblin suit was a bit weak but I haven't ever considered it as bad as some fans think.

For me, the only thing worth watching in 3 was James Franco (I have some sort of weird love for the guy and just see him playing Harry Osbourne in everything he does now :lol)

Mary Jane sucked, but then I hate Kirsten Dunst anyway.

In my opinion, The Amazing Spider-Man is the best Spider-Man movie. Here are some reasons why:

*The origin makes sense– There is an actual reason given regarding why OsCorp is genetically engineering spiders (to create a webbing that can be used as cables for industrial use). The spider granting Peter abilities with a bite is a miracle exception that I will permit (although it makes more sense than a radioactive spider).
*Andrew Garfield is a great Spider-Man– Tobey Macguire was a decent Spider-Man, but he didn't really strike me as Spider-Man, coming off more like a heroic person. Garfield not only had the body, he also had the personality and the fighting style. Furthermore, his performance was grounded more in reality—his parents disappeared (because I don't think they're dead) when he was a young child for a mysterious reason that he does not know of. For that to not psychologically impact him would make him unconvincing as a human.
*Gwen Stacy– She doesn't spend all of her time waiting for Peter to save her—she's proactive and helps him, be it with medical care, moral support, or in stopping the Lizard.

I actually believed her and Peter as well. I've seen more chemistry between my tv and the remote control than I did between Maguire and Dunst, Dunst was just so out of her depth and miscast. I think Stone is a really overrated actress but she was great as Gwen.

My dad disagrees with you, but I agree with you, so it doesn't really matter.

Did I mention that I appreciated the mechanical webshooters? Because I appreciated the mechanical webshooters. Only female spiders can spin webs, so it would make sense that Peter can't produce organic webbing. Additionally, the chances of spinnerets forming in Peter's wrists are not very high, as a spider's spinneret is located in its abdomen. The only contention I have regarding the webshooters is the fact that Peter was able to buy the webbing. I mean, this stuff is (suppposedly) used to tow airplanes—how was Peter able to obtain it?

eBay?

I was actually thinking Mandarake.

Ok, counterpoints:

*How is a high school student who can't even afford a Yoo_Hoo able to buy several cases of an industrial-grade biocable? Furthermore, how does no one recognize the biocable used by Spider-Man and either trace it back to him or cut off the source? And why do the web shooters have a fucking muzzle flare?

*Garfield undergoes no character development because he's whatever the screenplay demands of him at any given time. Skateboarding cool kid, dangerous brooding loner, antisocial jerkass, science prodigy... all of them completely unlikeable to me.

He's probably get it for cheaper there. :lol

I brought up the biocable thing in a later post. That is something that bothered me (I even made a Mandarake joke about it).

And really, how much more character development did Maguire's Spidey go through in the first movie? He starts off as an inconfident nerd, becomes an arrogant jerk, then a generic superhero. Garfield begins as a little kid to an outsider high-school student looking for his parents to a suddenly powered-up kid who chooses to ignore his responsibilities because of his arrogance to a vengeful vigilante looking for his uncle's killer to a hero trying to save his home and the people he cares about from a monster he helped create.

Not sure where the topic of Spider-Man came from, but I'm cool with it as I'm bored right now.

I loved The Amazing Spider-Man. Peter looked and felt like a normal kid. Gwen was intelligent and not just a damsel in distress. Peter actually got bruised from his fights as Spider-Man. He also made smart ass comments to people in the costume, which is something the Raimi movies severely lacked. My biggest complaints was the entire thing revolving around Lizard's plan and that this movie is really just the first episode to a high budget theatrical tv series. As such, if its sequels are bad, this movie becomes worthless.

I enjoy Raimi's duology, but they are not without issues. The first movie is pretty good outside of that god awful Goblin suit. My god, they got an actor with an amazing scary face to play Goblin, USE IT!!!! The second movie, though, is like 80% Peter and 20% Spider-Man. The plot just doesn't make sense (you lose your powers because you don't want them, riiiiiiiiiiiight), Doc Ock was just mind controlled, Dunst really showed how terrible her MJ is, it ended on a cliffhanger, and someone seems to be screaming every 10 minutes. That is not to say it is a bad movie, as Jameson is fantastic, the elevator scene is great (in both versions), Campbell's cameo rocks, the action is good, it had a lot of great moments (and Aasif Mandvi), it's just brought down by the plot, MJ, and Doc Ock not being evil.

Keeping in line with The Amazing Spider-Man discussion, apparently Mary Jane was cut from 2.

And what about 3 cause ramie movies were a trilogy

Oh my God really? And after all the backlash with the casting choice?

Honestly, I'm kind of glad.
They spend the entire movie trying to set up Pete x Gwen. It would feel too "HS drama" if they introduced MJ in the sequel just to shake it up.
That, and I'm just having bad visions of Dunst MJ to be welcoming of another film iteration of her.

I'd just laugh if Webb gave into pressures and chucked the actress for being too unattractive.

What's make it worse is that the actress allegedly filmed scenes as MJ, but they're all going to be cut from the film :p

Haha I feel sorry for the poor actress but they are right, part of MJ's character is how sexy she is in contrast to Peter. I know that might be muted a little now Peter is a sexy hipster but still.

The same thing annoyed me about the casting of Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Lois is supposed to be sexy and ferocious, her sex appeal is part of her character no matter what the shitty excuse for feminists we have on the internet say, not look like your best friends Mum.

Seriously? That's a pretty large cut!

The problem is that introducing MJ will kind of give a Lois Lane vs. Lana Lang sort of thing.
It makes Peter seem shallow, makes him only care about the looks of the other character, despite knowing the first one longer and essentially having an established relationship with the first.

While Gwen was conveniently killed off in the comics so that Peter wasn't pining over two women, I'm unsure how they're gonna handle it in the movies.

They're also recasting Mary Jane, so there might be more to this that we don't know.

At least with MJ out of the picture ASM2 should at least have enough free space to let Gwen die with dignity.


And no, that doesn't count as a spoiler! :P

Oh so they are recasting her? Looks like my joke is right.

So wait they are planning to kill of gwen

I think she did have the potential to be a pretty MJ. At least prettier than Kirsten Dunst was (not dissing on her, just that she was a different kind of pretty compared to MJ).

At any rate, I'm fine with leaving MJ out until they need her. Develop Gwen first and foremost and let MJ come in after Gwen's (inevitable) death.

A relatively famous comic plot is Gwen Stacy's death.
So killing her off isn't exactly a spoiler.