I liked the movie. The flag scene was definitely gratuitous though. Talk about taking me out of the movie...

I don't know why people are making such a big deal of "the flag scene" which lasted a whole 1 second or so. The first Spider-Man film had a much longer "flag scene". Furthermore, Spider-Man was created by a happy American (Stan Lee), and he's meant to be an American super-hero...  Yes, mindless Patriotism can indeed be a dangerous thing, and Americans are Patriotic but the fact that over half the US is very pissed with our president shows that Americans are not as mindless as many other countries believe us to be. In fact, I think it's quite ironic because the greatest mindless Patriotism I can think of is Europe and Japan during WWII.

ANYWAY, back to the point of this thread before people totally butchered it, I thought the movie was pretty bad. I saw it on I-Max and it looked like a video game for a large chunk of the time. Here's my breakdown:

Graphics: not very good. I've seen better graphics on other games (Oblivion) etc... Fight scenes were horrendous (couldn't tell what the hell was happening in half of them, too many things moving about)! 5/10

Soundtrack: It had a soundtrack? Well, there was something in the background most of the time, but nothing too memorable. 5/10

Voice Acting: Ugh! Maybe it's the script, but it all sounded like it came from a trashy romance novel! 2/10

Plot: Was there one? Again, I must blame the script 1/10.

I think if you're a drunk teenager or have the mentality of one you can really enjoy this film! Of course, it's not meant to be a deep or moving experience, which I wasn't expecting. It's definitely far from the worst film I've seen, but on the other hand it's a poorly made rehash of the Marvel Movie Method (basically, other than characters it seems like all their films the past few years have been the same thing). No sir, I didn't like it!

cheers,

-avatar!

You really like to use the "Unless you're a....." proclamation when voicing your opinions against something, don't you, avatar?  Seriously, what's up with that?   It's stereotyping in the most offensive manner.

I didn't say "Unless you're a" so please don't put words in my mouth. I think this movie is made for teenagers, and frankly I thought parts of it were so dull that alcohol could only have improved it (not that I drink, but that's besides the point)! Yes, that's the impression I got out of it. By the way, it's a well known fact that Spider-Man has always appealed to teenagers, since Spider-Man (traditionally) was a teenager (I think in the latter comics, at least some of them, he grew up) and also teenagers spend lots of money on movies (in fact, I believe teenagers are in the age range that spend more money on movies than any other group). So I don't see where's the stereotyping here, so let me ask you what's up with your comment?

-avatar!

Oh come on, you said essentially the same thing, making this argument a purely semantic one. 

Exactly right; the "unless you're" and "if you're" are very nearly the same.  And it wouldn't be the first time you've typecast in the same vein to fuel your opinion. (Recall the Jaws video game thread.)   

As for the 'made for teens' bit, sure, there's always been a teen element in these movies, but I doubt that was the crux of your argument, since you said you'd have to be a "DRUNK teen or have the mentality of one" - so it was clearly meant as an insult.  You're saying those of us who enjoyed the film would have to be one or the other?  Or is this just another case of you being "colorful"?

The highlight of the movie was when Peter knocked MJ down and someone in the theater yelled out "Finish the job!"

If you're into overly hyped popcorn flicks made for the general public, cheesy CG sequences that make Tomb Raider Legend look like real life and contributing to the bastardization of a well known comic franchise, this movie is for you. All "style", no real substance. Well, except for the Bruce Campbell bit. Other than that it was obviously a movie that was poorly thrown together for the sole purpose of making a big, quick buck. Frankly, that can be said about almost any movie that has a video game appear on at least six seperate consoles the week it his theaters.

Yes, I'm an opinionated individual. No, my posts are not meant to be insulting. People have different opinions about many things in life, and we're all at liberty to divulge our feelings. In this case, it was just a movie review and I really fail to see why you got so worked up over it. Could I have written my review to be more "friendly"? Yes, but I don't think in this case tact is such a big deal. Also, I really don't think others were so "insulted" by my review (I'm guessing not too many people lost sleep over it). It's just my take on one movie (which I thought was horrible, and I fail to see how people enjoyed it) -HOWEVER, that's the beauty of opinions. One person can enjoy it while others (I think in this case, the others are the vast majority) think it crapola. So anyway, point is I never mean these things to be a personal offense to anyone. If you enjoyed the film, that's good. I personally think Zane's review is right on!

cheers,

-avatar!

ps And again, I fail to see why you got the "stereotyping" notion, but it doesn't matter, since no harm is intended.

It's all about wording.  Your words in the way you presented them implied only those with the mentality of a drunk teenager would enjoy the movie.  Clearly, people outside of that description enjoyed the film.  I myself have an idea of what to expect, and wouldn't mind seeing it myself.

Well, I took it in today on a whim - probably the last guy on the Eastern seaboard to do so, but hey.

Anyway, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't wow-material either. I enjoyed the battle scenes, the waiter, and of course Jameson (though they didn't give him nearly enough to do). Gwen's presence was a little surprising, mainly because they didn't do what anyone familiar with the Spidey comics would've damn well expected them to do. But they are making a new Spidey cartoon where she's going to be a regular character, so I guess it was a retcon for the franchise. But on the flipside...

First of all, outside of fancy fight-scenery, Sandman may as well have not been there. In his opening moments wherein you learn he's motivated by his sickly daughter, I sort of got the impression they were going to take his character in almost a Ghost direction, where he would be able to get money to her, he could never directly see her again, 'not like this'. Instead he has nearly no dialogue outside of his intro and exit, and basically seems to exist to f--- up the Uncle Ben story. That he gives up and dies (?) when Peter forgives him and not, say, when his daughter gets help seems to suggest that by the end, the writers didn't know why he was there anymore either.
Also, too much story in too little time, which is ridiculous for 140+ minutes to work with. Perhaps if they had dropped Sandman altogether and made Venom the chief baddie on his lonesome they could have eased the pacing and fleshed some other things out a bit more (rather than have say, Harry get his shit together from touching a mirror and a chat with his amazing butler/medical examiner).
Finally, amnesia? Seriously, AMNESIA?

Actually, the amnesia is in the Spider-Man comics, but in the movie it does seem rather silly. I pretty much agree with what you said, especially the part concerning the Sandman.

cheers,

-avatar!

Responding to Sonic Panda's whited out text:

Um, he didn't die.  He flew away in that weird sandstorm thing, making him the only villain to survive the movie series, if you ignore the potentially sensationalist "Doc Ock may still be alive" newspaper headline in the background at the Bugle.  The problem with the movie is pacing... I say Gwen and Eddie should've been introduced in the second movie (I would've sacrificed it for that ridiculous train sequence) so this one could have been focused purely on resolving (instead of also having to also introduce) characters and plot lines.  And Gwen should've died in some fashion.

I agree that the movie would have been fine without Venom and to an extent Gwen Stacey as well, although I think they were incorporated into the story about as well as could be expected in the allotted time.

If you read some of the interviews with Sam Raimi regarding the movie, it's pretty clear Venom was included in the script as an afterthought to accommodate "the fans'" (actually Avi Arad's) wishes.

As for Harry's medical condition, I don't see what all the fuss is about.  It gives us a glimpse of Harry's good side again and is only temporary anyway.  For all the comic fans' moaning about how these movies stray from the comics' original stories and characters, you'd think they would be accustomed to a plot device such as that.