The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Quick review (1 Viewer)

[cinerama10]

Last night I saw THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 on our local Imax screen. Although it was shown on the world's largest cinema screen, the picture only covered 2/3 of the full size screen . Had it been projected on 70mm film the quality would have been fantastic and it would have covered the full screen..Sadly it was digital and the quality was dismal. Why do they show digital films on imax screens? It may be on okay on those miniature sized Imax screens that they have in cinema complexes , but on the world's largest screen it is an abomination..We both thought it was the very worst film seen that we had seen in the last 12 months. No reviews of the film were available in the press or on television before it opened. That was a clear sign that the film would not live up to expectations. The film was in 3-D but you would not have known as the film cut from one scene to the next with the speed of a concord, so you had little chance to take in most of the action. The performances of the cast was generally good, with the exception of some overacting by the villain in the finale. The fault must lie with the scriptwriters and director as the film was very overlong at almost 2 1/2 hours. Much wasted and unnecessary material should have been left on the cutting room floor. Judging by the number of inconsiderate morons texting during the film, they must have been as bored as we were. I am a great fan of the SPIDERMAN films and the first AMAZING SPIDERMAN film but THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 sucked big time

Spoiler

There was no emotional feeling when one of the main characters died You never cared when you should have.

Everything was full on. If you suffer from insomnia then seeing this film will send you to sleep very quickly. It was a most tedious experience from the very beginning right through to the finale.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Which IMAX did you go to? Just curious.

They've added new digital projectors to the 15/70 IMAX location here in New York City at Lincoln Square, and it has the same effect -- the smaller frame projected on the giant screen makes the overall image seem smaller and less substantial than it actually is, particularly if you sit further back where you can see all of the dead space. I've started moving even closer to the screen for those showings so I see as little of the windowboxing as possible. I've heard that IMAX is discontinuing all film projection at the end of the year, with "Interstellar" set to be the last film to get a 15/70 release. I've also read that part of the reason for the changeover now (as opposed to next year, when IMAX plans to roll out laser projectors which should at least fill the entirety of these massive screens), was because studios have refused to pick up the cost of film prints anymore, and that it doesn't make financial sense to make those huge 70mm prints for films which may not be hits, or may only be in the IMAX theater for a couple weeks. I can understand where they're coming from business-wise, but it's their job to figure out how to make it workable, not mine. IMAX is a brand I truly love, and I'm very concerned with how they're cheapening the experience. And yet, I still end up going, because the digital projectors on the giant screen are still larger than anything else around here.


The film doesn't open in the U.S. until May 2nd, so that's why you haven't seen any reviews from this side of the pond, at least.

 

[Bob_S.]

Why is this in the Blu-ray section?

 

[Sean Bryan]

Perhaps a thread title change to "HTF Official Review Thread" is appropriate rather than one person's opinion being part of the review thread title?

 

[cinerama10]

Which IMAX did you go to? Just curious.

They've added new digital projectors to the 15/70 IMAX location here in New York City at Lincoln Square, and it has the same effect -- the smaller frame projected on the giant screen makes the overall image seem smaller and less substantial than it actually is, particularly if you sit further back where you can see all of the dead space. I've started moving even closer to the screen for those showings so I see as little of the windowboxing as possible. I've heard that IMAX is discontinuing all film projection at the end of the year, with "Interstellar" set to be the last film to get a 15/70 release. I've also read that part of the reason for the changeover now (as opposed to next year, when IMAX plans to roll out laser projectors which should at least fill the entirety of these massive screens), was because studios have refused to pick up the cost of film prints anymore, and that it doesn't make financial sense to make those huge 70mm prints for films which may not be hits, or may only be in the IMAX theater for a couple weeks. I can understand where they're coming from business-wise, but it's their job to figure out how to make it workable, not mine. IMAX is a brand I truly love, and I'm very concerned with how they're cheapening the experience. And yet, I still end up going, because the digital projectors on the giant screen are still larger than anything else around here.


The film doesn't open in the U.S. until May 2nd, so that's why you haven't seen any reviews from this side of the pond, at least.

Saw it in Sydney,Australia.

 

[cinerama10]

Why is this in the Blu-ray section?

It isn't

 

[Bob_S.]

My bad, I thought I was in the Blu-ray section when I saw this.

 

[Freddie Z]

Oh darn. I was sooooo looking forward to this. Oh well, maybe someday, when it shows up in a clearance bin, I might watch it.

 

[TravisR]

Spider-Man is the only superhero comic that I read so I'll be seeing this movie regardless but the buzz has certainly dampened my enthusiasm.

My bad, I thought I was in the Blu-ray section when I saw this.

It got moved here from the Blu-ray section.

 

[Ejanss]

We both thought it was the very worst film seen that we had seen in the last 12 months.

And coming from a country where Baz Luhrmann's "Australia" is still the second-most popular domestic film, that's heavy condemnation.
Could we water down the tabloid title with a few specifics about the MOVIE, since most of the rant seems to be about the problems of real/fake/digital IMAX projection, which is just as much of a deceptive mixed bag over here?

FTR, it is worth noting that the US trailers have been progressively showing less and less of Electro in their marketing strategies...

 

[Sean Bryan]

Could we water down the tabloid title with a few specifics about the MOVIE, since most of the rant seems to be about the problems of real/fake/digital IMAX projection, which is just as much of a deceptive mixed bag over here?

I find it especially odd considering we have the poll thread above asking how it would be preferred to have movie review/discussion threads here at HTF that the mods are allowing a thread title that basically reads like, as you said, a tabloid title. I'm hoping I'll like the movie. Maybe I won't. I haven't seen it yet. But I'll never understand and I'll never care to understand attitudes exhibited by certain people who seem to have an obsession with wanting something to be bad and fail, and then declaring it terrible without even seeing it because someone else says they didn't like it. Surely the reception seems mixed so far, so I'm certainly preparing for disappointment. But there are plenty of reviews out there that are quite positive as well. Seems as if this is likely to be one that is relatively divisive. Regardless, I'm not sure the title of this thread is the way HTF wants to present itself.

 

[Rhett_Y]

After I saw the second trailer I was worried this might be the case. It seems to me the more bad guys you have in a film the worse the film is. Also all of the CG.......ugh

 

[TravisR]

I'm hoping I'll like the movie. Maybe I won't. I haven't seen it yet. But I'll never understand and I'll never care to understand attitudes exhibited by certain people who seem to have an obsession with wanting something to be bad and fail, and then declaring it terrible without even seeing it because someone else says they didn't like it.

My own personal theory is that it all boils down to not wanting to admit to having been wrong. If they've read something on the internet and then decided that the movie is bad years in advance, it's better to hope that their massively premature evaluation was correct rather than to have been wrong all that time. I'm willing to worry when bad reviews come out (especially when I read one from a guy like Cinerama who says he enjoyed the others and still didn't like this one) but until something approximating a finished work is seen, it's ludicrously premature to make a decision one way or the other about a movie.

 

[cinerama10]

My own personal theory is that it all boils down to not wanting to admit to having been wrong. If they've read something on the internet and then decided that the movie is bad years in advance, it's better to hope that their massively premature evaluation was correct rather than to have been wrong all that time. I'm willing to worry when bad reviews come out (especially when I read one from a guy like Cinerama who says he enjoyed the others and still didn't like this one) but until something approximating a finished work is seen, it's ludicrously premature to make a decision one way or the other about a movie.

I totally agree. One should not review a film until one has seen it. I never do .I saw the GODZILLA trailer in Imax and that did not impress me enough to want to see the film but who knows how may finally turn out when it is released in a few weeks. Amazon is full of members who review films that they have never seen . Also if a film is really that bad you can guarantee that people involved in the making of the film will write great reviews.

 

[cinerama10]

I totally agree. One should not review a film until one has seen it. I never do .I saw the GODZILLA trailer in Imax and that did not impress me enough to want to see the film but who knows how may finally turn out when it is released in a few weeks. Amazon is full of members who review films that they have never seen . Also if a film is really that bad you can guarantee that people involved in the making of the film will write great reviews.

SPIDERMAN has opened in Australia to mostly negative reviews.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

until something approximating a finished work is seen, it's ludicrously premature to make a decision one way or the other about a movie.

Agreed!

Especially for the movies where what you see in advertising is very different from what comes out. There have been movies I thought I'd love based on trailers and teasers and posters and advance reading and were utter disappointments when they came out; the opposite has also happened. And to use this movie as an example, based on the trailers, I'm not very excited about it... but I know that doesn't really mean anything other than that I didn't like the trailer. I remember being somewhat excited for the last Spider-Man movie and having been disappointed - actually probably because the movie Sony delivered bore very little resemblance to the movie they had been promoting. So with this new Spider-Man, not paying too much attention to trailers either way, since I'm not actually expecting the trailers to be any indication of what the movie is about. I'll be seeing it in May, and I'd like to enjoy it, so here's hoping I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

[Bob_S.]

Well, I hope this isn't the case since I thought the last one was the best out of all of them. Lately, I find myself not liking movies that have non-stop action and heavy cgi. DOS suffered from this and the second half of The Avengers. I plan on watching this in the theaters, can't wait.

 

[Nigel P]

Confirmation bias is certainly a problem. I don't tend to read reviews in detail prior to seeing a film, I might look at some summaries and get a general consensus for a film I am less sure about. I actually prefer reading them after watching a film and seeing if you agree with the reviewers take on it, what they liked or didn't like. It can sometimes bring up things you didn't think about or give you a different perspective. It can sometimes also make you question if they saw the same film you did. I am still planning to see this at the end of the month.

 

[Tino]

Perhaps this potential spoiler should be spoilerized in the first post. It may not seem like a spoiler to some, but it is to me

Spoiler

There was no emotional feeling when one of the main characters died

(Mod note - spoller added in review post)

 

[Simon Massey]

A film that entertains in fits but is ultimately disappointing. The previous entry had the excuse of rebooting the series and having to reintroduce the origin story - this does not. Ultimately the overall story feels rushed and disjointed and more of an attempt to introduce more elements of a franchise like The Avengers than any effort to tell a coherent story. It appears that the lessons from the Raimi series have also not been learned - there are far too many plot elements fighting for screen time and two villains are unnecessary even if there is a greater focus on one. It is easy to understand why the filmmakers jettisoned the casting of Mary Jane Watson - here the focus is on the relationship between Peter and Gwen, and like in the previous film they are the highlight with both Stone and Garfield showing why they were perfectly cast. The problem is that the desire to create conflict between these two characters never convinces, rehashing elements that were already covered in the previous entry all in service of a payoff that is all too obvious to anyone who is paying attention. The special effects are beautifully realised and all the action sequences are visually stunning despite the overload on slow motion shots. But these can't make up for the disjointed storyline and the original Spiderman sequel is still the benchmark!!

**1/2 out of *****