Special tuesday episode, just for this week’s big Spider-Fail.
ALSO: Big Picture is on at it’s regularly-scheduled time for “Batman Revisited: Part II.”
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
I hope you guys realize that there is no way Marvel is getting Spiderman back any time soon. Even if this movie were a colossal failure, Sony's going to keep those.
LikeLike
http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/spiderman
Huh, apparently he's not the only person who thinks this. Let me guess, Ben Kuchera is biased and just hated this because he wanted to.
LikeLike
I know Bob won't read this, but I just have to clarify some things. For the people saying that the only people calling out bias are only doing so because they liked the movie, or those condescendingly stating, to an adlult audience, that a review is subjective and, therefore, filled with opinion, your base argument is flawed and those are not understanding our argument. I watch Moviebob and I follow him here, on his blog, and twitter. We aren't angry with him because we liked it and we disagree with his opinion, we disliked it because as far back as the Social Network review and before, he clearly panned the film and he didn't give the film a chance. I can speculate with the best of them that he is just fanboy-ing out because he wants Spiderman in the Avengers (who the hell doesn't), but the fact of the matter is that we aren't mad because a subjective movie reviewer has an opinion, we are upset because this is presented as serious critique, but it is just a diatribe about a work that he never gave a chance from the conception. I have been following Bob for some time now and when I disagree with a review I can at least hold to the fact that his integrity as a critic isn't shot because he gave it a chance. I am being verbose, but the fruit of the matter is that I know for a fact that Moviebob will rail against this movie for sometime now, almost as much as he rails snarkily about the people like me accusing him of a very real bias. It doesn't matter, what matters is that Moviebob had his guns aimed at this since its conception and he tore through, very publicly, every clip, every costume choice, every sliver of information about this film in a way that destroyed any shred of critical integrity that you may have had when reviewing this movie. The majority of movie reviewers, more experienced and honest than you have called it amazing. I had hope that you would give the movie a fair shake, but you couldn't even say that the movie was average. Like I said, I know that you aren't going to admit this to us, and I know that you will deride this movie and commenters like me for the weeks to come. You can have fanboy outrage or you could have your integrity as a critic, Moviebob, you can't have both.
LikeLike
Taylor: The film might well be bad for all I know, and people are always going to disagree. The point is not “Bob hated the film, therefore he's biased”, it's “Bob IS biased, therefore a negative review from him is meaningless”.
LikeLike
To Michael Harris' point, I'm not even saying Bob even needed to not give an extremely negative review of the film (though I do personally suspect the nature of its production is something he has yet to entirely get over). If he hated the promotional material and hated the film, hey more power to him in expressing such.
But he had to know that that the various comments he's made would in the minds of many call into question the legitimacy of his eventual review. Look the fact is I'm sure Bob's had to put up with a lot of obnoxious people in reference to this film, and I'm sure it must be frustrating for him to be getting so much heat for a movie that he seemingly considers to be bad and unworthy of defense.
As a semi-public figure he probably deals with a multitude of crap and dubious arguments that are to infuriating to deal with. I'm sure it must be very tempting to just ignore/lash out at all the comments that are being thrown his way, I completely get that.
In my opinion however that does not excuse his outrage at the very suggestion of bias, and his numerous comments painting all the criticism with the same brush as simple minded people who just don't get Spider-Man and are disagreeing just be contrary. I don't think all are to be dismissed out of hand with sarcastic comments about them being film scholars and journalists; as quite frankly he certainly does not need to talk down to his audience or critics to make his points.
I know Bob is a huge fan of Spider-Man, and that he himself is quite passionate about film adaptations of superheroes, especially when they shoot for bringing the very best from the comics. This sort of attitude both from him (and the more obnoxious defenders of ASM to be fair) however seems to bring the worst of comic fandom into play.
LikeLike
We get it!
You don't like “Grim & Gritty”!
Give it a rest!
LikeLike
@Taylor:
I had to cringe when they called Peter's school “Midtown Science High School.” WHAT???? The other examples just paints a picture of sloppy, amateurish story-telling.
LikeLike
Are you sure you're familiar with the Spider-Man franchise? Because I've gotta say – I've read nearly all the original 616 run, Spider-Girl, and Ultimate Spider-Man. And Amazing Spider-Man's more developed and fleshed out treatment did more justice to the franchise in one film than Sam Raimi or perpetually morose and dopey Tobey Macquire managed to in three films. Every flaw you complain about can easily be thrown back at the Toby films, magnified.
Oh wait, I admit that Toby's Peter had a slightly more identifiable personality – albeit that of a mopey, unfun, wet blanket that was asking for a punch in the face from the Rhino.
Raimi's Spider-Man 3 did far more damage to the franchise than anything Garfield's posse has or likely will put out.
Also, quit crying that they can't tie Spider-Man into the Avengers. Spider-Man doesn't belong on the Avengers. He's consistently a character that does not play well with others. A lot of the pathos and drama from the character is simply removed if Peter Parker can just ask Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic to handle some super villain so he can make it to his job on time. The hero works best on his own. Just like the X-men. And I'm personally glad that Spider-Man's schtick of being a LONE HERO in Manhattan and Mutants being feared and hated consistently for HAVING POWERS rather than simply having the wrong KIND of powers isn't muddling up the Avengers and vice versa.
LikeLike
Ok Bob, I have already stated my opinion of your review, in that regardless of the films quality you should not have posted a review, your irrational hatred for it having been made so public for months. I will not mention that here. Instead I would like to bring up some contentions you make in your review that I believe to be factually inaccurate. I will not address things about overall film quality, those being completely subjective (though I very much liked the film).
First your analysis of the lizard's motivations are so wildly inaccurate that I think there were certain points in the movie you may not have been at your most aware. The Lizard never says he wants to conquer the world. He simply wants to spread his “cure”/genetic alterations to create a superior more advanced race, drained of all weakness, to the entire earth. This seems like a fairly logical link for a deranged man, whom had an unhealthy obsession for abolishing man's imperfections even before he was corrupted by the “cure.”
You then factor in that the movie very clearly ties the serum Connors is making with the one Osborne will eventually consume to become the green goblin, and it is very easy to see that Connors is in madness that creates aggression and rage. Thus his designs on the most extreme and evasive “solution” to man's weakness.
I struggle to see how these are random and wild leaps. There is a very deliberate and clear progression hear of the lizards ideas and madness. Whether you like this progression may be subjective, but to say he randomly is leaping from one position to another and wants to conquer the world is factually inaccurate.
The second is your statement about how the film is one giant coincidence of “just so happens to be connected” events. What you did there, that can be done with almost every film and major piece of literature that has ever been produced, both good and bad. Some of the most acclaimed and famous works of fiction (the Greek tragedies, and Shakespeare in particular)are the worst offenders of this actually. This is a nothing argument, and a dishonest one at that.
I want to go into the character development of some of the protagonists as well, but that strays farther into subjectivity than I would like.
It is clear to me that you recognize the film is at the very least a competently directed and acted genre film that is at worst mediocre. You seem to see that, and at times in your review almost admit it. However, your vitriol and extreme and embarrassing bias hide this, and make for a pretty terrible review.
I'm fine with you not liking it and thinking it mediocre, or even fairly bad. But the way you reviewed this film, forgoing fact to stain it in the eyes of your viewers, seems wrong to me.
LikeLike
As someone who saw the movie and thought it was the most agonizingly paced series of thoughtless plot points guided by nothing more than a bunch of unanswered (and honestly, uninteresting) questions; I can't believe how much positive review it is getting.
And I'm a fan of the new outfit… But the whole story, and the way it was told, was utterly brutal.
LikeLike
@Aiddon
Um, in the comics that was the name of his school.
LikeLike
Bob's credibility? Oh please! This is the guy that recommended people see The Last Airbender. I watch EttM cause it's entertaining as hell, but it's an absolute crap shoot as to whether he's actually right about anything.
LikeLike
@ deimos How dare you bring facts into this? Don't you know that the studio made the new movie to make money? Clearly the worst of all sins! No creative effort has any value unless it is free….or bob likes it.
LikeLike
@Aiddon, @Fallen Angel and @…Anonymous I guess?
In terms of this rage being entertaining, it is strange. I knew that MovieBob was going to dislike the movie from the get-go. I've been watching Escape to the Movies long enough that he rarely ever bends. I think one of the few exceptions is Rise of the Planet of the Apes, where before the film's release he was very skeptical (in particular because of the first trailer). But most of the time, well, what you hear is what you get.
I've met Bob in person, so I try to respond like a person. In fact, I try my best to remember that everyone on the Internet is a person and I shouldn't lash out. So I assumed MovieBob would dislike this movie for the same reason I can assume my friend will dislike any Halo game just because it is named Halo.
But something about his review made me want to explode. I don't know why, but it did.
This is not a perfect movie, the fact that it had so many different writers on board is pretty obvious, and it felt like Sony tried to cram two separate films in here (becoming Spiderman and stopping the Lizard), making it a bit disjointed at parts.
And yet I still managed to enjoy it quite a bit.
I will admit that this may not remain true on repeat viewings. I stopped liking Raimi's versions so much after seeing them again and again. Their flaws stood out more and more. So in the end it might not be as good as I felt when I first saw it.
But it wasn't as bad as he made it out to be.
Plus, as I said, there's nitpicking that just screams bias. He mentions terrible CG. Well let's look at Raimi's Spider-man. Remember the scene when the Green Goblin first attacks? Remember how terrible the pumpkin bomb CG looked? And most of all, remember how much Kirsten Dunst hanging precariously from a crumbling balcony looked like a movie set? In fact, add a couple of wires and a green landing mat and it would have looked like a special features recording of how they made it.
Yet this stuff gets a pass? Why? Because MovieBob, LIKE ANYONE ELSE, allows his judgment to be changed by personal feelings. I'd just like some level of acknowledgment of that, as he had when it came to the Tim & Eric review. I know I don't like that brand of humor, but it was nice to hear Bob confess that his review is based on a personal preference for that sort of thing.
I'd just like that level of honesty where the Raimi films vs. this one are concerned, be it honesty with the audience or honesty with himself.
LikeLike
Well, Bob, I finally saw this movie today. I've seen and heard you rip into movies that you really hated. And while they came off more like angry fanboy rants than actual reviews, I could at least see where your arguments had some merit. But never before have I seen you so off base with a movie as this one. Nicholas was right: you should have recused yourself from reviewing this movie (Though I imagine you pretty much had to review it for The Escapist, as much as you probably wouldn't have wanted to). And as much as it pisses you off, it's the truth: you have bias.
Also, I have known Spider-Man for longer than you have, having been familiar with his many media incarnations over the years, from the 1960's cartoon to Ultimate Spider-Man. And I can say with confidence that you, sir, do not know Spider-Man as well as you might think.
In short, this single Spider-Man movie succeeded for me where all three of Raimi's movie failed. I know that you're butthurt because Raimi wasn't involved, and that it looks like Spider-Man won't be going back to Marvel/Disney anytime soon because of this film. And believe me, if I thought this movie was the piece of crap that you thought it was, I'd be right up there with you. But to me, a good story is a good story, regardless of who was responsible for making it. And judging TASM on its own merits as a superhero movie – and more importantly as a Spider-Man movie – it's a damn good one.
None of the issues you had with this movie were a problem for me. Not even the crane sequence. In fact, I found it WAY more believable than the subway train scene in Spider-Man 2, which still toady comes off as manipulative and schmaltzy and heavy-handed. Sam Raimi may be a great action director, but subtlety is not his strong suit (something that, on the other hand, Marc Webb does very well).
BTW, those “muzzle-flashes” weren't really muzzle-flashes at all; they were the buttons on the webshooters being activated. And the effect was pretty subdued. Had you not pointed them out, I wouldn't have even known they were there.
The only really bad thing I can say about this movie was that the bulb burned out on the projector or something in the theater I saw it in. So I missed the last few seconds, including the post-credits scene…although I could hear it. So I'm guessing that was Norman Osborn himself talking to Connors? I guess I'll have to wait until the Blu-Ray.
Incidentally, the management gave all of us free passes because of that, which I'll very likely use towards The Dark Knight Rises.
At this point, Bob, I really have to call your credentials, as well as your credibility and even your journalistic integrity, into question. I think The Escapist needs a second movie reviewer. Not only to review the movies you may not want to see and or have strong personal prejudices towards, but also to counterbalance your arguments. In short, you need a Gene Siskel to your Roger Ebert. I may not be a college professor, which you may prefer, but I DO have a Bachelor's Degree in Mass Communications with a minor in Journalism. I've studied film, and know just as much about it as you, if not more. I am also a major geek. And odds are I can do just as well a job at reviewing as you, if not better. So I am going to apply to The Escapist, asking them if they'd be willing to take on a second movie reviewer to provide a second opinion if needed. Consider the gauntlet thrown down!
LikeLike
Just got back from seeing it. and while I admired the acting, and the directing, and a couple of nice little touches, I feel that it just didn't work for me as a movie. Bear in mind I actually left all baggage and prejudgments at the door when I entered the cinema, and I started off enjoying myself, then got more and more depressed as the movie went on.
If I feel Bob is slightly hyperbolic at times, I cannot deny that he brings up some very good points in his review. The screenplay is a mess, the Lizard bits just get ridiculous with the terrible CGI, and the crane sequence was plain stupid. Andrew Garfield does some great work, but the whole thing just didn't feel like Spider-Man. Sorry, but this ain't gonna be a version I remember.
And as for this massive backlash against Bob, I refuse to participate. Biased or not, unfair or not, he gave his opinion. Telling him how to do his job and calling for him to be sacked isn't going to help matters. Critics are biased all the time, it's a habit some can't shake. How many d'you think lined up to take pot shots at Clash of the Titans, or kick the latest superhero movie around town? For God's sake, A.O. Scott gave the Avengers a negative review, and if I remember correctly, he too criticised the circumstances of the filmmaking. Know what? He kept his job. He's still a critic.
At the end of the day, I think everyone has already made up their own minds about the film. People love it? Great. People hate it? Fine. It's all opinion, and if there's one thing you can never be worng about, it's your own opinion.
LikeLike
Having returned from this movie, I can safely conclude the following:
1) Whatever his pre-release conceptions about this movie, Bob was mostly accurate with how utterly cheap, phoned in, and effortless this movie felt. Not entirely, but mostly accurate. One should not have to enjoy a Spider-Man movie by pretending that the awkward, stuttering, brilliant-but-then-dumb hero on the screen is not, in fact, Spider-Man twenty minutes into the film's run. One should DEFINITELY not be able to, at any intense moment of Spider-Man's back in the shot while the score swells, submit to the urge to up and utter “I AM THE NIGHT!” in deep, grave tones.
2) There are numerous comments here wallowing in hypocrisy. Just as much as they want to call the gentleman wrong for his pre-release conceptions, they fail to acknowledge they themselves hold a GRUDGE based on those same conceptions, and are gleefully letting such an attitude color their words, opinions, and inflammations. I'm wondering if I'm the only one that heard Bob bitch about the production, took it with a grain of salt, and decided to take the movie in based on my own judgment.
3) The credits teaser single-handedly discredited any single or collective thing about this movie. Just on how it takes a dump on the by-the-numbers fun of the movie, I will certainly not be purchasing a ticket to any sequel under Sony/Columbia's name. An eight dollar lesson learned.
LikeLike
“…single or collective fun thing about this movie…”
Backspaced when I didn't need to.
LikeLike
@Capt Derp
The difference is that just speaking for myself, I'm not claiming to be unbiased nor bristling at accusations of lack of objectivity which is more than I can say for others.
Moreover, I have far more issue with Bob's response to people's thoughts on his review than anything else. Simply put its entirely possible that Bob actually was capable of going into this film with a neutral opinion and coming out of genuinely thinking its poor.
But if you spend so many months attack the aspects of the film prior to its release, you really shouldn't be surprised when people are a touch skeptical about how much of an open mind you had for it when it was released.
Really you've already pointed out the practical damage such a continual stream of negative expression can produce, inducing not only questions of alleged bias towards Bob, but arguably creating actual bias within his own viewers.
Now again, I don't think that Bob should suddenly decide to self censor and certainly not in anyway make him not review certain releases, that's ludicrous. Just to consider that in this hyper interactive media age; what one says is going to have a knockdown effect in some way or another.
I don't think a variation of “I'm not biased at all, you're just biased against me” doesn't really help things.
LikeLike
He heavily emphasises plot and story contrivance as one of his major criticisms of this film…is he mad?
The set up for The Avengers film – and pretty much any and all films, TV shows books and games to varying degrees – is loaded with contrivance. As has already been pointed out, the Raimi Spider-man titles are guilty of this.
This is just one of those areas where you've got to suspend your disbelief, and I believe that Bob has done that numerous times for movies he didn't have a grudge against.
I'm not saying he's not allowed to dislike a film, I just think he needs to be more honest when it's clear that he was unwilling to give this film a chance and set about building a case out of nitpicks when he couldn't find enough material to justify the anger in his voice throughout this evisceration disguised as a review.
I actually thought he was going to pull a “just kidding” after about a minute or so as I simply couldn't believe the tone he was using and the emotion in his voice that caused his voice to waver as if close to tears.
We all have our biases…Bob's clouded his judgement on this one I feel and it messed with his critical sensibilities.
LikeLike
Hey Bob, since people are giving you alot of shit about your review, I just wanted to say this was the most enjoyable movie review to date in my opinion. You hit the nail in the head so many times during the video I was grinning toward the entire review.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Lord Slithor: Best of luck, but if you're serious, don't “apply” to be a film reviewer. Just write a review, and send it in. That's really the only way to get anywhere in this market. Yahtzee's article “How to Become a Game Journalist” puts things into perspective; there are simply too many people out there “asking” to be critics.
I doubt the Escapist is looking for a second film critic in the long term (being a gaming website and all), but they may well be interested in a well-written response to Bob's review, since it's a hot topic over there right now (same as “Heavens to Bob” found a pretty big audience). Can't hurt to try, right?
LikeLike
Do you know what the absolute WORST thing about this blog post is?
Big Picture is on at it's regularly-scheduled time for “Batman Revisited: Part II.”
Bob squandered a perfect chance to say “same bat-time, same bat-place” in the style of the Adam West show. What a terrible waste!
LikeLike
My only negative to call Bob out on:
He hates that this is a reboot and that it's probably not going by source material properly in certain areas, and that Uncle Ben's death was not to his liking, and so on……
And yet, he's ok with the fact that X-men: First Class (which did have an ACTUAL comic to go from when it comes to new source material for a reboot) has Mystique as a good guy, has Havok as an original instead of Cyclops, has Magneto crippling Xavier with a shot to the back, as opposed to being in the war, and so on.
You hate this reboot for its inaccuracies, and love the other despite its inaccuracies. Hmmm….
That said, I'm neither here nor there with this. I just get mad when people say it was better than Avengers, when that has a lot going for it.
Oh, and for the whole Lizard/Loki thing, they had reasons to take over the world. Lizard wants to make reptiles dominant. Loki is a demi-god who wants to rule things like a king, especially humans since he's stronger than him. Those are reasons, just crazy ones…..
Enjoy!
LikeLike
I'd say that Moviebob's review is totally wrong, and pretty much everybody else has already said so here. Moviebob comes off in Armond White-levels of crazy here. You actually used the word “Twilight”? Wow. That's going deep. Apparently every storyline focused at all with teenagers is Twilight, incredible.
You can't even give Martin Sheen any credit? You can't give any of the very decent action any credit? You can't give the very heartfelt scene where Spider-Man saves little kid any credit (manipulative maybe, but was still lovely)? And how is Uncle Ben dieing because Spider-Man didn't stop a different robbery situation than the one specific one that occurs in the comics totally ruining his comic arc?
I don't know Mark Webb's motivations in making this movie, but it appears to me that he certainly had a great deal more interest in making a decent movie than the ACTUAL assembly line committee that made last year's Green Lantern.
At worst, Spider-Man is mediocre. Its nowhere near as bad as Moviebob is saying. And what has him so angry here? I have no clue. The story didn't follow the very specific plotpoints he desperately needs from the comics. Its petty. Or maybe he's drumming up pageviews by being obnoxious.
I mean, JESUS, you compared this to “TWILIGHT”. That's punching at the balls. And even if you didn't enjoy this movie, it wasn't nearly that bad.
LikeLike
Okay, you know what happened? Bob gave The Amazing Spider-man a 'nerd' review. And not the Neil Degrasse Tyson or Doc Brown kind of nerd. The Superboy Prime type of nerd.
LikeLike
I loved this review. It was hilarious. That is all.
LikeLike
Have to completely agree with Chris Cesarano and his “JUST SO HAPPENS” list. There's countless movies with coincidence-laden plotting but you conveniently decide to single out this one? I have a lot of respect for you and your work, Bob, but you really do seem biased here. No offence intended; I'm just calling it like I see it.
There have been certain movies in the past that from the offset you've seemed absolutely determined to dislike or outright hate ('Star Trek' reboot, 'Pirates 4' being the obvious examples) and you'll dredge up some – my opinion, obviously – very petty reasons to justify said hatred.
I mean, you spent an entire blog post tearing into every apparent plot hole in 'Pirates 4' but, to my knowledge, conveniently overlooked the gaping plot hole (brilliantly highlighted by the 'How It Should Have Ended' gang on youtube) at the end of the otherwise terrific Captain America movie.
Sorry mate but when you do things like that then you're pretty much asking for accusations of bias.
Anyway, not out to offend you or rile you up. Like I said, just calling it like I see it. Keep up the otherwise very good work!
Apologies to the more inflammatory posters on here, by the way. I'm a boring, diplomatic bastard. 😉
LikeLike
Oh, and for the record, I'm genuinely a bit gutted at the lack of J. Jonah Jameson in the movie. He's easily my favourite member of the Spidey support cast and I thought J.K. Simmons was perfect in the role.
A little part of me was genuinely hoping they might carry him over to this rebooted franchise the same way they kept Judi Dench for 'Casino Royale'.
LikeLike
Personally, I'm surprised Bob wasn't even MORE angry and critical towards his movie. Considering how much he's despised this movie's very existence, I expected him to be more like this towards the movie…
This movie is crap, pure, uncut, unadulterated, unnecessary, undeserving of existence, unwatchable, mind-degrading, franchise-shaming, career-destroying (shows a picture of Andrew Garfield) CRAP. If you see this movie, you're one of the reasons why the United States is so stupid, if you like this movie, you're THE reason the United States is so stupid. Do NOT give this movie your money, do NOT let it succeed. All it deserves is to completely DIE at the box-office, and fade off into obscurity where it belongs.
Yeah, basically, I expected Bob to be something more like that.
LikeLike
Bob really needs to pull that hair out of his ass he has on this, it really stopped being funny a long time ago.
LikeLike
Okay, please nobody get all butt-hurt at me for saying this, but I hated the Raimi movies. It's just my opinion, not a personal attack on your values. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to put this out there. That being said, while this movie handled his origin a little more believably, Spider-Man 1 did it closer to the comics, and I like that. However, I'm fine with changing an origin story for the sake of storyline (like TDKR's Bane being Arabic/British instead of Caribbian) as long as they keep it recognisably similar to the original. Once they start shit like giving one character another's origin (Batman Returns's Penguin having Killer Croc's backstory), that's when I get pissed. However, other than a book-faithful origin, I found nothing in the Raimi trilogy that I liked. The story focused more on the Peter/MJ/Harry drama than the actual superhero stuff, which is what the target audience (at the time, little boys) went to see. They made Peter too pathetic and whiny, Toby's eyes made him look high ALL! THE! TIME!, and the acting was corny at best. I hated that they made Doc Ock such a sympathetic character. He's supposed to be a bad guy, not some angsty dude with possessed arms. And lets all be honest with ourselves. Spider-Man 3 was shit even for Raimi. Now I can't read a Venom comic without thinking of ERIK FUCKIN FORMAN!!!!! The only part I found even remotely enjoyable in these movies was JJJ cussing out Peter, and even that got on my nerves after the first movie. Now, on to this movie. I liked it, and I'm not that huge of a Spidey fan. I prefer his villains over him. The only reason I went to see this was for the Lizard. I ended up loving the movie. Ben was funny, they handled the physical toll of superhero life realistically, and they kept Peter in High school. Teenage Spidey is the best Spidey in my opinion. I also love that they COMPLETELY left Harry and MJ out. If I remember correctly, he didn't meet either of them in the comics until he started college. The Lizard being smart and British was pretty badass, and at least his story was sympathetic in the comics, too (lookin' at you, Otto). All in all, one of the best movies I've seen in a while.
LikeLike