The Internet would have you believe that I am the only person who thought “The Amazing Spider-Man” was overally pretty terrible. But, then, The Internet would also have you believe that a Rotten Tomatoes percentage means something relevant in film discussion (it doesn’t) and that having negative opinions about the prospects of in-production films and/or advertising materials makes one inelligible to opine on the finished product; so you should take The Internet with a grain of salt.
In any case, I’ve got no problem being in the minority on this one; but I won’t lie – it’s nice to be agreed with by smart, insightful people. People like the mighty Film Crit Hulk, who has penned his highly-negative take on the film over at BadassDigest. You should read it. ALL of it.
MOVIEBOB CENTRAL 
Bob, please read this article on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-boaz/obamas-accomplishments_b_1654836.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Now I ask you again, how can you support Obama when his record is as bad as Bush's?
LikeLike
Bob, I like you & agree with you most of the time, but when you get overly gripey folks like something you don't & go “ALL OF YOU READ THIS THAT AGREES WITH ME IT SUCKS” you really make James look like he has a shred of a point.
Yay, you have a critic who agrees with you, I didn't send you to read every positive review of it cause I liked it.
More people agreeing with you doesn't make you right any more than lots of people liking the film mean it's good & you're wrong.
LikeLike
@ Merrick HLC
Maybe he just thinks the article is well-written and captures a lot of what's wrong with the film from the perspective of an educated film writer? What's wrong with giving attention to a genuinely good article? And you really think James the raving, stalking lunatic with his Fox News pundit-speak looks good in comparison?
LikeLike
Anonymous: I don't watch Fox News, except for John Stossel.
LikeLike
Anonymous: If Bob ever posted praise of articulate reviews that disagreed with his opinion that'd be believable.
And note I didn't say James actually was right about a damn thing. I said it made it look like he has “a shred of a point”
James is wrong, wrong, wrongitty wrong wrong & needs the help of a good psychotherapist, but when Bob gets a burr up his britches about something and just refuses to let it go (ME3 ending debacle & this movie daring to exist) and often bashes anyone on the other side while singing the praises from the rooftops of everyone who agrees…. he does not act counter TO what James says.
In fact, if one removes the stalking aspect from James & leaves the “This is my point, agree with it or you're less intelligent/awesome than I am, and I will point this out as many times as I get the opportunity to” he bears a resemblance to James.
LikeLike
Merrick_HLC: THAT is why I go after Bob; becaue he continues to spout this insane “I'm always right and anyone who disagres with me is inferior” attitude. Look, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Bob NEVER admits when he's wrong.
LikeLike
It's not the job of a debater to argue against their position or present all the opinions that exist for “balance” and this goes a hundred fold more in the subjective field of narrative criticism.
Seriously, where did Americans pick up this stupid idea, anyway? I've only ever heard it as a way of attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Sounds like the kind of thought-terminating nonsense Rush Limbaugh would throw out instead of actually presenting his own compelling counter-argument. I have never heard anybody ever say “I agree fully, but you fail to mention these opposing viewpoints”.
LikeLike
See. It's giving James ammunition, that alone is reason to stop.
xD
Also I have to say, I find it so funny those who fanboy over Raimi's movies tend to bash those who fanboy over Nolan's Spider-Man movies.
To me they're both similar, the fanboys I mean.
“They're the best ever. We shall state that as an absolute fact & if you are negative towards them that is reason to disregard your opinion wholesale”
No. Just No.
Both are fine collections of films, but the fanboy claims of perfection are laughable.
LikeLike
I so wish this had an Edit or “alert for more replies” feature.
To anonymous:
I'm not saying “You always have to point out those who disagree or present both sides” I'm saying when you are a HARDCORE advocate of one belief that is in the minority and latch on to whoever agrees with you & shout how awesome they are it becomes annoying after a bit.
As to refuting the points, that'd be easier if precise & valid points were made, but the vast majority of this is entirely subjective stuff.
They find the character of Peter lacking, unfulfilled, unrealistic & such in this.
I have precisely the same problems with Raimi's version of Parker.
I saw the first 2 Spidey movies opening day & saw the 3rd not long after, but those movies never made me care, at all for Peter Parker.
I cared about J Jonah Jameson, I cared about Harry & Doc Ock, but Peter himself was an annoyance.
Whereas FCH points to Spidey 2 as “The perfect comic book movie” I (And feel free to accuse me of being dismissive & rude here) honestly burst into laughter reading that line.
The Nolan movies, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe, all did better jobs as comic book movies to me, translating the protagonist well as well as the villains.
The thing is I acknowledge this is subjective.
LikeLike
No bob, you aren't the only one who didn't like it. You are however the only one stupid enough to mention on an almost weekly basis why this movie was going to be terrible only for nearly every one of your predictions to turn out to be false.
You are also the only one dumb enough to think you could do this, be wrong and NOT have peopel call you on it. So instead of being a man admitting you were wrong or simply admitting that you were incapable of making an objective assessment, you do what you always do when you find yourself in this position. You lash out and throw multiple tantrums. You did it with metroid and you are doing it here.
I myself just saw it. Easily better than any of the raimi movies and in my opinion, Better than avengers, especially from an action standpoint.
The entire theatre clapped when the lights came up. You may not like it, and some reviewers might (although most do) but alot of people seem to be enjoying the crap out of it.
LikeLike
“It's not the job of a debater to argue against their position or present all the opinions that exist for “balance” and this goes a hundred fold more in the subjective field of narrative criticism.”
Reminds me of this.
LikeLike
So, in manner of responses to Bob's Amazing Spider-Man review(s), we have so far:
“Bob iz biased!”
“Bob's just a comic/Raimi fanboy!”
“Bob just hates Sony!”
“Bob haz lost all kredibility as critic!”
“Jaaaaaaammmmmeeessss!”
“Film Kritic Hulc's writing iz stoopid! I kan't reed it!”
“You didn't like Spida-Man! I DID! Waaahhh!”
…Am I missing any here?
(Yes, the hate has gotten that boring that I'm now categorising it. Sue me.)
LikeLike
I hereby make the motion that Fallen Angel be immediately declared “last sane person on the whole goddamn internet.” Seconds?
LikeLike
Hey Bob! I was looking for a way to reach you directly but without finding one, this is the best I could do.
You might want to read this… http://michaelgraham.com/archives/free-speech-gets-a-beatdown-in-ma-court-mdash-rematch-scheduled-for-monday/ kinda strikes me as up your alley.
LikeLike
@SirRosser, no, no I'm not with you. There's plenty of well written and reasoned counter points here (along with the nutbars) and he resorts to misspellings and typing in idiot speak to belittle said opinions while offering nothing to counter them. Why on Earth should anyone celebrate that attitude?
LikeLike
http://howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com/?p=6419
This story does it so wrong!
LikeLike
Bob, is there any way I can have your e-mail? I wanted to share some ideas about spiderman, but some of them are actually kinda personal… I tried to find your e-mail here, on the escapist… with no success. Is there any problem with that?
I know It may be personal, or something but… I wanted a closed-message-thing-like with you.
If you may, My e-mail is luccas.franklin@gmail.com (email-me, and I'll email back, again, if there's no problem with that…)
LikeLike
I actually really enjoyed reading Film Crit Hulk's review and agree with a lot of what he had to say.
But he wasn't reiterating points he already bitched about leading up to the film's release suggesting he had already made up his mind, and he wasn't using hyperbole. He was taking the film on its own terms rather than bitching about how it was forced to be made by executives.
Film Crit Hulk wrote a smart, insightful review. Yours was anything but.
I am happy to disagree with Film Crit Hulk because I can see and agree with all of his points, even if I ultimately still enjoyed the film.
LikeLike
@Fallen Angel
No, you pretty much got all the bases covered. It's why I always find Bob's detractors hilarious; they literally NEVER have any new material or criticisms to throw at him.
LikeLike
@Aiddon
Is…is that seriously how you think it works? Really?
Wow man, just…wow.
LikeLike
Of course, the only people winning in this thread are Bob and Film Crit Hulk.
LikeLike
Saw it for the second time today. First time my fan boy milk was all over myself. So this time, after rewatching Bob's two reviews and reading the Hulk Critic.
I still liked it, Spider-Man fan here for nearly 15 years, though to be fare unlike Bob I didn't like the Animated Series and I -do- like Ultimate Spider-Man.
It gets dull after the bridge scene and doesn't pick up again until the climax. The changes they made the origin are no different to me that the changes made to Batman (no Mask of Zorro?), Iron Man, Thor (where -is- Donald Blake by-the-by?) or the Punisher.
That being said, I can really see how it isn't for everyone. I grew up loving Marvel's What if? series and DC's Elseworlds. The idea of changing things here and there to make a darker story isn't new to me, as even the publishers do that.
The Raimi movies are good watches but they have similar flaws to what Bob mentions. I could go through them all but I that'd be boring.
I will say that I gave up on the Raimi movies right when Spider-Man could lose his powers by not wanting them in Spider-Man 2.
To Bob, who I respect and like. I want to say that I do feel people have been attacking you rather too harshly. But at the same time, you said this wasn't as bad as Green Lantern, yet Green Lantern did not get the same level of vitriol from you.
Film Critic Hulk does a better job of making the same points, and being convincing because he doesn't go off in a rage. Perhaps that's the weakness of the video-review genre, I don't know.
Regarless Bob, don't go all “Spoony” on us. Be Linkara, be the better man and know that you're fans are here, and we will stay. You did come off as wanting to hate the movie, but for me that doesn't matter.
You're still the guy who put into words what I thought of Bayonetta, better than I could. You're the guy who kept me as hyped for the Avengers as I could be. And you were the one who reminded me, “Magneto is Right.”
LikeLike
Wow, this thread, like all Bob's other Amazing Spider-Man posts since the film's release, has really gotten out of hand.
If you think he's biased and want to hold him accountable, write The Escapist directly and complain to them. They pay him to do Escape to the Movies, after all.
Don't get me wrong, the last thing I would do is call for anything that would hurt Bob professionally over this because, while I disagree with Bob's review, I didn't see anything inherently wrong with it, either. So I'll just chalk it up to us disagreeing on this particular film. I just get tired of people complaining for the sake of complaining.
As for the film itself, I liked it. It wasn't great, but it wasn't a complete wash, either. In the hierarchy of Spider-Man films, my order is Spider-Man, Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3. At the end of the day, they all have their pros and cons, and the definitive Spider-Man movie hasn't been made yet.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone were MILES beyond Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. MILES. They worked really well together, and that always helps you feel for the people on screen.
I do wish, however, that we'd gotten a little bit more about how Peter and Gwen's relationship developed. It seemed like they knew each other a little bit at first, they showed interest in each other, and then they're having dinner at her house, making out on the balcony and he reveals he's Spider-Man. I'd like to think that the studio just forced them to take a chunk out and we'll get a bit more context in a Director's Cut later on down the line.
One thing I REALLY liked in this movie was the fact that when Pete got beat up (both in and out of his costume), he showed it, and the other characters reacted to it. Spider-Man doesn't have any kind of healing factor: when he gets hurt, he's affected the same way you or I would be. So the fact that Spidey took the kind of beatings he took in the Raimi films without a mark to show for it always rubbed me the wrong way.
As for Peter's character itself, a lot of the work was done through very subtle means. Yes, they didn't use the exact “With great power must also come great responsibility” line, but the heart of it was still there. Ben's spiel about how Pete's dad said if you have the ability to help people, you have the responsibility to? Yeah, that's the modified version of “with great power.”
The reason it doesn't immediately take hold is that, unlike in the Raimi movies, Peter wasn't indoctrinated (for lack of a better word) with the concept because, as Ben said, they didn't talk about Pete's parents much, if at all. So yeah, it took him a little while longer than we'd expect to have the importance of that message brought home to him. The conversation/argument with Captain Stacy really seems to help bring the point home that Peter needs to see past his own pain and use the gifts he received to help more than just himself. The Uncle Ben voicemail at the end also helped cement that.
Oh, and the crane scene was by NO MEANS the stupidest thing ever seen in a Spider-Man movie. Dancing emo Spider-Man and the fact that SANDMAN killed Uncle Ben in Spider-Man 3 will forever hold that dishonor.
I could go on, but I've already taken up enough real estate here. So yeah, I enjoyed the movie despite its flaws and am interested to see if we get a Director's Cut on Bluray and how things progress if this universe is given a sequel. Peace out!
LikeLike
Y'know, normally I'd defend Bob as it's only natural for a review of any sort to be biased and oppinionated. I mean, they all are, and we pick our reviewers based on how often we find ourselves agreeing with them and,or how much we have in common with them.
But this time I have to side with the 98% that the world can apparently do without. This is a bullshit move.
His first mistake of course was exhibiting so much bile for this movie before seeing it. The moment he pulled that, nobody was going to take his review seriously anymore.
Even ignoring that first one, he still might've pulled it off if he'd just left it at that. But no, a follow-up video because he knew he'd goofed up, and now THIS. One thing a reviewer should never do is try to defend his review.
Worst thing is, I was sure it was going to suck anyway, had gotten my dissapointment out of the way ahead of time, and shrugged it off. And even so, I still find this review to be in poor taste. Get your shit together Bob, you used to be better than this…
LikeLike
Look, at the end of the day, characters beat plot and ASM has better characters than any of Raimi's films. Garfield is a much better Peter, Stone is a much better girlfriend, Sheen is an infinitely better Uncle Ben.
It's nothing short of hypocritical to bag on ASM for a contrived and messy plot when that applies to every Spiderman movie. You just excuse Raimi because his films are meant to evoke the silver age comic era SM, which also featured contrived and messy plots, while the plot hang ups in ASM are far more present because the film has no such stylistic intent. Alright, fine.
The problem is all your complaints – and Hulk's – revolve around the plot and not the characters and the simple truth is that engaging characters will always take precedent over ever other aspect of film making.
So the script doesn't know who Peter Parker is? Doesn't matter, because Garfield does and his performance communicates this to the audience. Uncle Ben doesn't say the iconic line? Fantastic! Instead of hammering a phrase at us to the point where it has no meaning, Sheen makes us understand the intend of the line rather than just blurting it out for fan fapping. Hulk think Peter/Gwen don't work on screen. Clearly Hulk forgot just how terrible a character Dunst's Mary Jane was throughout all three of the previous movies.
At the end of the day, character wins out and ASM has it was where the previous films did not.
LikeLike
“One thing a reviewer should never do is try to defend his review.”
If you're not willing to defend your stance, why even make one in the first place? No less than Roger Ebert went on record multiple times about why he considers the Transformers series toxic.
LikeLike
One more thing about this.
To everyone who says that the little “promises that can't be kept are the best” bit somehow ruins the character of Spider-Man forever, read One More Day and tell me that isn't WORSE than the promise bit in every conceivable way.
Besides, that bit could lend a bit more depth/adversity to the Peter/Gwen relationship in a sequel. Who knows how they'll play it? Maybe Pete and Gwen try to date, but Pete starts to feel bad about going back on his word and breaks it off. Would that have ruined the character? Not from where I'm sitting.
We simply don't know how it's going to develop.
LikeLike
I swear people are watching a different movie. Peter and Gwen romance has no drama or conflict what so ever. It's pretty much mindless flirting then he reveals he Spider-Man and they make out even more. I know people don't think Bob has the right to compare to Twilight but it kind of is.
Also, Spider-Man wasn't funny. He is like a guy who doesn't know when to stop with a joke and keeps going thinking it gets funnier when it doesn't. If he would have just said “Do I look like a cop to you?” that would have worked but he keeps going and any humor is lost. It really is like watching someone who is a douchebag attempt humor. Also, I love how people say the Raimi movies were corny and had bad slap stick when this movie keeps using the “He broke something with his uncontrollable strength” gag a million times.
Film Hulk was right about that last line too.
LikeLike
I need to get a browser add-on that will edit out any comment with the word “bias” in it.
LikeLike
Anonymous said: “Also, Spider-Man wasn't funny. He is like a guy who doesn't know when to stop with a joke and keeps going thinking it gets funnier when it doesn't.”
In other words, they got the character right. In the comics, he really does think that he's making with the funny and most of the surrounding characters find him annoying.
LikeLike
I know that if Bob had come out of this movie liking it, everyone here who is raging against his bias would still be all over him with “I told you so” and “time to eat crow” comments. In fact, people already did that back in his post where he mentioned that the initial reviews out of the UK were mostly positive.
Maybe Bob went a bit overboard in his 'It doesn't look good' predictions. Maybe he didn't do enough to state, 'but we'll see how it turns out'. That doesn't make his current opinion invalid. Nor does your attempt to prove bias. It is just one opinion, you can move on now. Unless you are somehow hung up on Bob's opinion and feel that his is much more meaningful than an average person's. Why else would you be spending so much time trying to debate it?
LikeLike
Honestly guys. This argument is still going on?
LikeLike
Bob is barley a blip in the vast toilet of the internet. Who cares what he says, both positive or negative?
LikeLike
@Anon
No, the fact that he literally is making shit up about the movie to find fault with makes his position invalid. That bit about lensflares was especially bad considering I can't remember a single lensflare in the film.
Actually…scratch that. Yeah the fact that he's been on a one nerd crusade against this films since before it was in preproduction invalidates his opinion. Because we have noway of knowing if he's being honest. Except for when he says things that are blatantly untrue. You have to make a choice. You can have credibility or you can use the media as a tool to bludgeon home your own personal agenda. You don't get both.
And incidentally, if he had liked it I'd bet money that multiple people would have given him props for admitting he was wrong.
It would have been a sign of integrity. But as we can see from the multiple posts on the same subject (something bob only does in this fashion when he knows full well he is making a losing argument, see Metroid) we ain't getting one of those anytime soon.
LikeLike
@Previous Anon
Is this really that hard for people to figure out? Are you all really this simple minded? Fine, I'll spell it out for you:
Bob's an entertainer first and foremost. His job is to make sure we stay engaged in his content and the main schtick he uses to do that is fast paced ala Yahtzee. But the big draw is how emotionally charged and blunt he is about what he talks about. He's portraying himself as a guy who cuts through the 'BS' (i.e. common social censorship present in non-internet discussions)to 'tell it like it is.' Whether it's a genuine character trait of Mr. Chipman or not is irrelevant. It's what makes him popular, it's his schtick. It's how he entertains.
But this concept of emotional honesty that Moviebob is meant to inhabit has come back to bite him in the ass. He's spent so much time being so clearly against this film for reasons that have nothing to do with a film's responsibilities to an audience, that when review time finally comes around, he's destroyed any trust we have that he'd judge the film on its own merits which is the responsibility of any film critic who considers themselves a professional.
But even taking that aside, the real sticking point that's got everyone up in arms is going right back to the issue of honesty. I'll hazard a guess that most of Bob's fans understood that this was going to be the case regardless of whether the film ended up being any good or not. No, what's sticking in their craw is the lack of emotional honesty from Bob by not admitting the painfully obvious bias he applied to this movie in his review, which runs directly opposite the Moviebob character he's established, because now it appears he's cowering from an uncomfortable truth rather than blithely acknowledging it. Now it's Moviebob, the guy who cuts through the BS to tell it like it is…unless it applies to him.
This Hulk thing is especially egregious because of how obvious of a deflect and redirect tactic it is.
LikeLike
@multimedia No, only bad writers make Spider-man that way but more importantly I know that the characters are supposed to find him annoying but the reader or the viewer shouldn't. You want see Spider-Man one liners done right, go watch any episode of the Spectacular Spider-Man.
LikeLike
@ Dave From Canada, You may have enjoyed the film, but A)there was lansflare, B) I fucking hated it, and C) so what if Mr. MovieBob went in biased? If the movie had engaging, or actually had character growth/ development maybe he would have liked it more. But, Peter/Spidey, is quite literally, the same person at the beginning of the film, that he is at the end. There is also no real push to be engaged with him as a character- he's too dumb to know his parents are dumb (“where is he”? He is dead you twat), doesn't have to fight for or prove anything to Gwen, they simply like each, which would be awesome if they ever went on a real date and we explored their relationship. As for being a hero, he only goes after people that look like the guy that killed Uncle Ben (even after the dinner scene with Capt. Stacey, he only goes after the Lizard), or the monster he accidentally helped create. As such, he is never a proper hero. Everything he does is to save his own ass. Garfield and Stone have amazing chemistry though, and the score is solid, if a bit uninspired at times.
LikeLike
@ bobby
Because the entire point of a review is to tell us about the relative quality of a film. If a person has decide beforehand that it is terrible than the review is worthless. And since bob decided this movie was a tool of the devil over 2 years ago, and didn't hav ethe integrity to tell people before the review
I'm not sure what movie you ere watching because if there was lens flares, it was minimal. Certainly not the super 8/star trek elvels bob is implying. But then again he also kept calling it gritty when the film is easily the most upbeat of the spider-man movies.
As for the no growth, I disagree. Peter starts the movie as a detached, largely selfish, bitter loner. He only starts fighting crime in order to get revenge. Over the course of the movie he realizes that being a hero is more important than getting even. Instead of just hearing the great power line and changing on a dime, he actually has to learn it over the course of the film.
When gametrailers reviewed rock band they specifically mentioned that they were owned by the same company…and thus there was a chance for a conflict of interest, That's due dilligence. Bob is less concerned with the truth than he is in getting his way (and I'm just gonna say it..I think he knows this was a good movie and just doesn't want it to be.)
LikeLike
Hey guys,
Not sure if this constitutes spamming, but If there's anyone that agrees with Bob's assessment of the Call of Duty franchise, as well as any fans of Trent Reznor/Nine Inch Nails, you might want to check out the latest post to my blog, which is a response to the news that Reznor is scoring the Black Ops II theme.
It's a relatively brand new blog with virtually zero traffic, which is something I'm hoping to change eventually. I'm not nearly at the level of Bob in terms of literary chops and insightfulness, but I think I bring a fresh perspective to certain issues.
If you're interested, check it out:
http://vinnyandreotti.blogspot.com/2012/07/why-is-trent-reznor-scoring-call-of.html#more
LikeLike
It's always been apparent that Bob and his mass of fans are hipster elitist assholes who think they're better than the world. One guy posits that every detractor to Bob has the same arguments, giving examples in misspelled idiot speak, and never have any valid points.
For starters open your eyes and actually read what these people are saying, sure a lot of it is about his bias and what have you but they're all completely intelligent and well backed up. This isn't a bunch of idiots whining that Bob didn't like the movie, others even admit to disliking it. The point most are making is Bob obviously never gave it a chance, the amount of vitriol aimed at the movie before its release is a good example of that.
The other point they make is that Bob acts like he's of superior intellect to those that disagree with him. Literally saying that it's nice to be agreed with by smart insightful people. The people disagreeing with him have been smart and insightful, but he (much as he says he doesn't) obviously doesn't like being in the minority and being disagreed with, else he wouldn't keep posting about it and sharing articles with people who agree with him and he definitely wouldn't be acting like an asshole essentially claiming that the majority of people who disagree with him are blithering idiots. That's a dick move.
And the final point I've noticed is the fact that Bob continues hypocrisy as he often does by claiming that Rotten Tomatoes percentage is not irrelevant in film discussion and the scores on the site are not indicative of the film quality and thus anyone using that as an example is an idiot. But he used the scores before with The Avengers and he's using an outside review to prove help give his arguments some weight. That's all using Rotten Tomatoes is, it's a site that tallies reviews by professional film critics. Bob is a hypocrite.
The fact that most of Bob's defenders are completely bashing everyone who even posts anything intelligent or not is depressing. And then when people link other negative reviews and tell Bob's detractors to go harass those critics too. It's funny; we don't care that Bob didn't like the movie. It's the fact that he was unprofessional about the whole thing and keeps defending himself with crap like this, while obviously never understanding or reading what his detractors are saying.
But there's no point arguing, the radical fans will continue to spit venom at anyone who even calls Bob out on his bias an hypocrisy, and Bob like the members of the TGWTG team will sit on his happy little pedestal knowing he's free of criticism cause he and his fans will be damning anyone who sends any his way.
LikeLike