What's new

Spider-Man (2002) (1 Viewer)

Matthew Chmiel

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2000
Messages
2,281
I thought Spiderman was great and the audience I was with (almost sold out show at 3pm) dug it as well. Hell, the whole audience cheered right when the end credits appeared. Too bad that Spiderman will go down as one of the worst theater experiences I have ever had. Our theater had:
1) A dumbass talking LOUDLY on his cell phone for a few minutes. A few seconds into his conversation, people were shouting for him to "shut the fuck up" and after all the yelling, a security guard came into the theater and escorted him out.
2) Dumb ass middle schoolers who had a laser pointer. God, if I could beat up every middle schooler, I would. :)
3) Little kids that wouldn't shut the hell up. LEAVE YOUR KIDS AT HOME DAMN YOU!
Oh well, hopefully I will be able to see this movie again with a less rowdy of a crowd.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
Well, it was sold out from 7-10 PM by noon. It was totally sold out by 7 PM (all times). I got the tix last night:D The crowd really seemed to like it. The new Scooby trailer went over like a ton of bricks. Frank, I am a big Spidey fan. I wanted the film to succeed. I expected to give it an 8/10 based on the positives and negatives I heard. I was wrong. It was absolutely great! I enjoyed every bit of it, and it all felt completely right to me as a Spidey fan, from the Goblin to MJ to Peter. Well, maybe not Flash;) But everything else. Great ending as well. John Dykstra is a whiz, and it looked tremendous! Cannot wait to pay my money again.
Take care,
Chuck
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
I have a feeling a lot of SW fans really don't want to like it or have it succeed.. which is sad.
Not true in my case. I'm excited about seeing it tomorrow night. I was going tonight, but switched with my brother-in-law. Had a last minute emergency. But I'll be there tomorrow night with bells and whistles on. :)
By the way, is it really necessary or useful to tear down Ebert because he has a different opinion? I think not. People have different opinions. I attacked him for his Gladiator review in this thread, a film I loved. But I was wrong in that. I decided not to get too worked up over someone's opinion, as it doesn't effect me. He had his opinions, and it's not like his opinion affects you in any way. He's not perfect. Every film critics have reviews we question. But ripping the man apart is pointless. He did have quite a few positive remarks about the film.
No film has 100% positive reviews.
 

Dave Anderson

Second Unit
Joined
Apr 8, 1999
Messages
348
Great flick! My son and I just got back; we both loved it. There are some flaws, though I'm too tired to discuss them. I give it a 4/5.

Interestingly, I always read people's reviews mentioning that the whole theater was clapping when such and such a film ended. Well, this is the first time I've ever experienced it. When the credit rolled, the theater was roaring with applause. No doubt that there were a lot of Spidey fans in attendance as it was opening night.
 

Chuck Mayer

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
8,515
Location
Northern Virginia
Real Name
Chuck Mayer
A last bit for the CGI nuts...especially Nick :p) and his effects dig. I will assume you know that John Dykstra was a MAJOR founding member of ILM...not like George, who started it...Dykstra DID it, for years, until striking out on his own.

In regards to effects, Spidey succeeded far beyond my expectations. Was the CGI a bit noticeable...sure. Did it take me out of the film? No. Was it inventive, creative, skilled, and something I had never seen? Yes, yes, yes, and hell yes. Watching it, I thought, you know that the effects Oscar will come down to ILM and Weta for TTT and AOTC, but will they dazzle me like this film is doing? Will it be new and fun? Will it show me something I have never seen, or will they just have photorealistic images of things I have basically seen before...but maybe not as much of them. And I don't know. I haven't seen either film yet...but I know they'll have to bring their A+++ game with a NEW bag of tricks to top what I saw tonight. More of the same old, or just shiny stuff won't do it for me.

I have to agree with Scott...this is a GREAT movie!

Take care,

Chuck
 

Brian_J

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 3, 2001
Messages
418
By the way, is it really necessary or useful to tear down Ebert because he has a different opinion? I think not.
Yes, if his opinion is highly flawed! Which it was.

On to other more important things. Did anyone else catch the homage to Superman when Spiderman starts to tear his shirt off? Pretty cool.

Brian
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
How is your opinion any more valid than his? The man knows more about film than any of us in this room ten times over. Disagree with his review, but don't slam the man's intelligence. The only reason you consider his opinion flawed is because it doesn't mesh with yours.

As for this movie, I have no doubt I'll love this film.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
Whatever! I have no problem discussing his review, and what you felt was wrong about it. But some of the vitriol spewed his way in here is ridiculous. There are more negative reviews out there that are more worthy of being picked on than Ebert's. Ebert's, though I'll probably disagree with him on the quality of the film, presented his criticisms in a well thought out manner. He discussed his reasons.

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment as of yet. But the vitriol should stop. Things like the man should retire.

You want a review that's cannon fodder, go check out Rex Reed's review.
 

Duane Robinson

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
347
The reason people have a problem with his opinion is because his reasons are flawed and in some cases based on his own ignorance and or stupidity. Just because he couldn't understand a scene doesn't mean that he should bash it and use it as a flaw against the movie. That would be like me bashing a roadster car for having only 2 seats and no roofs when anyone with any knowledge of automobiles knows that roadsters have 2 seats and no roof. My ignorance about a subject shouldn't be used as ammunition in my arguing against it.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
A movie should stand own it's own. I'm sure this does. But Ebert knows films and movies. He certainly has the intelligence to understand what he saw. He shouldn't need a doctorate in comic books to understand the film.

All I'm saying is you can disagree with his review. You can discuss your disagreements with his review. But some of the attacks are a bit more personal than just disagreement. And that's wrong. And let's be honest. The real reason people don't like his review is because he doesn't share the same opinion of a movie they love. Discuss it, but cut out the personal attacks. That's all I'm saying. It's amazing you guys are picking on a well written and well thought out review, while ignoring some of the really silly negative reviews.

By the way, I argued the same thing about his negative review of Gladiator, as I mentioned. Many people here told me the same thing I'm telling you. The only difference is those people here didn't love Gladiator. The negative review obviously hits closer to home when it's directed at a film you love.

As for his CTHD comment, that was about the only comment that raised my eyebrow. I don't agree with him that there was weight in the scenes in CTHD. In fact, they floated. But other than that, I saw nothing in his review that suggested ignorance. But I don't see the film to tomorrow night.
 

Duane Robinson

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
347
The comment about Ebert or is it Eggbert's ignorance is not based on his lack of knowledge about the comics. The one scene he points out as negative is a scene that if one was paying attention or had any sense at all blatanly tells you Peter's motivation for leaving Mary Jane. If he didn't like that part and left it out then it wouldn't matter. But if he doesn't understand a scene, which is fairly simple and obvious yet he uses it as a negative in reviewing the movie then people have a right to question his intelligence and wonder if he did in fact lose it. It's not like this was Memento or something, the scene was failry simple and if he was cogent or paying attention then he should have realized what happened.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
No you shouldn't have the right to question his intelligence. I don't think there's any doubt he's an intelligent man. What you should do is criticize his review, instead of attacking him personally.

We're going in circles. Slam him to pieces for all I care. I've disagreed with him a number of times, but personaly attacks are juvenile. This sort of thing reminds me of the fanboys that railed and attacked Ron for his lackluster review of TPM. That wasn't right either.

Let's agree to disagree. It's not that important anyway, as long as I enjoy the movie.
 

Matt Stone

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2000
Messages
9,063
Real Name
Matt Stone
I haven't read the whole thread...and I agree with Terrell that we should not personally attack Ebert, but boy that review does suck. It makes me wonder if he even watched the film. And the comment about gravity in Spidey vs CTHD...I had no sense of gravity whatsoever in CTHD, but I did in Spiderman. Whatever...to each his own, I guess.
 

Duane Robinson

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
347
Terrell the reason why I condone people bashing Eggbert and not what the fanboys did to Ron is because of the complete difference between both cases. In Ron's case he saw the film, completely understood the world presented and what the characters were capable of, formed an opinion and wrote a review on it. Eggbert on the other hand did not. As someone who claims to have read the comics he apparantly wasn't paying attention to those too. He claims that Spidey moves to fast and bounces around like a rubber ball, which is what the damn character does. That would be like Ron writing a review and stating how ridiculous it was when those Jedis fought with swords that somehow shot a laser beam to a specific height and then stopped instead of going on in a stream until unterrupted. Or complaing that the Jedis forced pushed battle droids at will.
He then goes on to mention CTHD's floating movements incorrectly in comparison to Spidey's. In CTHD the characters defied gravity much more than in Spider-Man as they floated and drifted around while Spider-Man used his strenght and incredible reflexes to defy the laws of gravity and physics like no normal human could. Now if he understood the nature of the character and took that into account then his complaints become baseless and don't belong in his review. His final comments about Peter's rejection of MJ have already been disproved which throws out nearly all his complaints about the film. Now if he complained about the CGI, acting, or pacing then I would understand and say it was his opinion and leave it at that. But when a highly respected and widely influential critic presents an argument as flawed as he did then people should be free to jump all over his ass since he is a professional and should be held to higher standards than some regular guy just giving his off the street review of the film. Plus I loved the damn movie and I will have no one say anything negative about it even if it's true. :D
PS: that last statement was just a joke for all the folks out there who seem to have broken their funny bones.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
That would be like Ron writing a review and stating how ridiculous it was when those Jedis fought with swords that somehow shot a laser beam to a specific height and then stopped instead of going on in a stream until unterrupted.
You're really pushing it. That's not the equivalent of what Ebert did.

Sorry Duane, but your argument is extremely convenient. If you think it's right to personally bash someone because of a review regardless of your reasons, have at it. I see no point in having the discussion. It is absolutely no different than what was done to Ron. You saying the situation was different is again, too convenient. Bash away then. Quite frankly, it's something I'd expect fanboys to do. But it's your right to do it.
 

Duane Robinson

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
347
PPS: Rex Reed is a drunken, toothless moron and his mother wears army boots. :D I'm just putting as little effort into my review of him as a critic as he put into his review of the film. It's clear he was either doped up, drunk or something when he watched the film or wrote that review. Or maybe he's just writing a negative review amongst a sea of popular reviews to stand out and hopefully get noticed for it. Isn't this guy the quote whore who can be found giving out great praises to some of the worst drivel that Hollywood can shovel our way. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it but as far as I'm concerned he's one of the lowest forms of critic around and I usually have a strong disdain for critics. Except maybe Scott, that guy kicks ass and for the most part we have similar tastes. Although he didn't like the Fast and the Furious which I kinda dug his review had me laughing my ass off and that makes him a good guy in my book.
 

Terrell

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2001
Messages
3,216
Or maybe he's just writing a negative review amongst a sea of popular reviews to stand out and hopefully get noticed for it.
Again, a convenient fanboy argument to dismiss a negative review. Although if any deserves to be challenged, his does. But that argument suggest that everyone has to have the same opinion as you do. If not, they have a motive for doing it.
EDIT: I can speak better on this after I see the film tomorrow night.
 

Duane Robinson

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
347
I'm not a fanboy I don't even read comic books. I liked the movie and have no problem letting it be known. I also don't mind if people absolutely despise the movie, even if they don't give good reasons. But for a professional critic who gets paid to do this and also is looked towards for opinions of whether a film is good or not his argument was just plain wrong, end of story. If he had correctly complained about things that are either subjective or objective then I wouldn't have a problem with his review. My argument is not convenient but just my opinion that the two cases were extremely different. Like I said before Ron wrote a review based on seeing the film, completely understanding the rules and concepts presented in the film, and basing his opinion on those rules and concepts. Ebert did the polar opposite. His review got numerous things incorrect, made comparisons that were faulty and flat out wrong, and misunderstood the rules and concepts presented by the film and faulted the film for adhering to its own rules and for his own ignorance and failure to understand particular scenes (The MJ rejection scene). Going back to the car anology: That would be like me giving a sports car a bad review because it had a big engine and drove really fast. Or getting angry because I couldn't downshift when the manufacturers clearly stated that the car had an automatic transmisson. Again my ignorance or failure to understand concepts that are clearly stated shouldn't be used as ammo against it. The same thing goes for Eggbert.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,711
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top