I am only quoting your post again so you will receive a message alerting you to this post. I have received your PM and understand. I would have PMed you back, but I'm getting some weird error message that will not allow me to use the PM function.
Bob, I like the vast majority of your reviews. They're normally very accurate and professional. However, I've found that I simply cannot take any of your opinions on super-hero movies at face value. This review in particular was more a monologue about how Spider-Man is ruined forever for you and barely a review on the actual movie. And like the last movie, I fully expect this one to be an okay action flick for its super-hero fighting and less the train wreck you seem desperate to get everyone to believe.
I'm honestly just going to have to stop watching your videos on super-heroes and monster movies after ASM1 (I found it okay), Iron Man 3 (terrible movie, like IM2), The Avengers (overly hyped and not as fantastic as you made it out to be) and Pacific Rim (I thought this was one of the dumber movies I've watched) and now this movie. Granted, I have not seen it yet, but this reaction to it seems entirely unwarranted and your record doesn't really make me think I can entirely believe you. It may not be a good movie, but I sincerely doubt it's as awful as you make it out to be.
I know this is all just your opinion, and I respect that I don't always agree with you on movies that aren't super-heroes or monster movies. But my goodness, these reviews in particular just seem to lack objectivity.
"The Amazing Spider-man has no real real narrative structure, every element of the film is shameless set-up for future movies that leave the actual film in question with nothing but bones, none of the film's villains have a cohesive plan that drives the film, the sub-plot with Richard Parker is stupid and unnecessary Harry Osborn feels like a huge retcon, and while the things Bob likes are the same things everyone likes(good action, good web-slinging) everything involving the actual story is SHIT. Just shit." That looks like a pretty good review to me.
"Barely a review on the actual movie." Were my words, I believe. I never claimed he didn't actually review it, but his review takes up the minority of the video. The rest was him throwing a literal fit because he simply doesn't like the direction the movies are going. It was unprofessional, unnecessary and I don't have to expose myself to it by watching any more of his super-hero themed videos. I'm not sure you even read my comment and instead jumped blindly to defend Bob because you can't accept that someone is going to roll their eyes at his overly dramatic antics. I like Bob, but I'm not going to hold him in such esteem that he's above criticism and can't personally be held to a certain standard. If you don't have the same standards as my own, that's fine. It's what having an opinion means, watch and enjoy all his videos. Doesn't mean that I have to do the same, however.
Yes, he does. His standards are not the same as yours, and his belief system is not the same as yours. It is pretty egotistical and judgmental to say his disappointment is somehow less valid than yours just because of the specific subject matters involved; particularly when--and forgive me if this sounds dismissive of your faith--many people consider Spider-Man and Jesus Christ to be of approximately equal historical authenticity. You do not get to set his priorities, nor determine the strength of his reactions.
Actually I'm an Atheist and the reason this movie broke me was because it belittled, insulted, and straw-maned everything I stand for as an atheist and people came in flocks to cheer it on and give it 24 times the money spent making it. (It's also a bad movie.) The Amazing Spider-Man 2 may or may not be a bad movie but until it becomes as offensive as Birth of a Nation or God's not Dead, to me, all I'll see in this video is a whining crybaby who needs to pull out his nuts, unclench his ass and grow a goddamn spine and not react like a little baby over something this trivial even with in the context of cinema.
I'm an atheist and the reason this movie broke me was because it belittled, insulted, and strawmanned everything I stand for as an atheist and people came in flocks to cheer it on and give it twenty-fours times the money spent making it.
My apologies for misunderstanding which side of the religious divide you are on, but my point still stands. You are not the arbiter of what is offensive to people. You do not have the right to declare, "This is my priority, so anyone who has a different priority is a whining crybaby who needs to pull out his nuts, unclench his ass, and grow a goddamn spine." You are no more wrong about your emotional reaction to the new Spider-Man movie than Mr. Chipman is.
After listening to this review, all I wanna do right now is drop everything, get in the car, drive to Boston, find Bob, and do what I can to comfort him in this time of need. Just hearing him pour his heart out like felt like someone who just lost a close friend. I can certainly relate to this and I think I speak for everyone here (except for those who liked this movie. God knows what their taste in movies lean towards) that none of us want to see something we love turned into something horrible. I'm not talking about people who piss and moan about Johnny Storm/Human Torch being played by a black actor. I'm talking about a comic book world and its characters turned into a passionless, corporate cash cow that is not only insulting to the art of cinema but damaging to it. And this is what Sony is doing to Spider-Man right now.
A lot of people give Sam Raimi shit over the first three Spider-Man movies. Some of them valid, some of them trivial, and some just plain fucking stupid (No, I will not say which). But, regardless of all that, at least the first two Raimi Spider-Man movies had a vision. They had the ear markings of an artist who loved these characters and their world. Even the 3rd one still had that vision, but its where we see the tainted claw marks of the corporation slowly starting to mangle it just to appease the money gods. And I can proudly say that Mark Webb is not that kind of a director. I've sat through the first one and there was no artistic vision to speak of. Webb was just a willing yes man sent in to do a job like an obedient little monkey; merely wear the vest and fez, do a little dance for the masses, and collect the money while Sony works the street organ. Much like M. Night was when Will Smith hired him to make After Earth. I'm not gonna fault the actors on this. Andrew Garfield did an OK job. Unfortunately, he and other actors were in the same ship the actors (excluding Kevin Costner) from Man of Steel were in; trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. Sadly, all the enthusiasm and can-do attitude cannot save a movie with a lousy script and piss-poor direction.
What really pisses me off about this is that, according to Rotten Tomatoes.com, a lot of critics say this movie is flawed but they're giving it a pass anyway. Even the website itself gave it a pass. So that tells me two things: 1) Rotten Tomatoes has no clue how to do its fucking job and 2) the critics are either completely incompetent or corporate whores or all of the above. No wonder I take the words of online reviews like Brad "Cinema Snob" Jones more seriously than the so-called "professionals". -_-
Fuck it. I'm gonna tell everyone I can to avoid Amazing Spider-Man 2 like the plague. If you still need to see it, then wait until it hits Red Box. Don't give Sony anymore money than the rock-bottom price of a one-day rental.
I wouldn't even give them that much of my money. I'll wait and watch it on cable TV, just like I did with The Amazingly Lame Mr. "I Just Did 80% Of Your Job For You".
I'm an atheist and the reason this movie broke me was because it belittled, insulted, and strawmanned everything I stand for as an atheist and people came in flocks to cheer it on and give it twenty-fours times the money spent making it.
My apologies for misunderstanding which side of the religious divide you are on, but my point still stands. You are not the arbiter of what is offensive to people. You do not have the right to declare, "This is my priority, so anyone who has a different priority is a whining crybaby who needs to pull out his nuts, unclench his ass, and grow a goddamn spine." You are no more wrong about your emotional reaction to the new Spider-Man movie than Mr. Chipman is.
And my point as well still stands, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a movie about a guy who dresses up in red and blue spandex and fights crime, God's not Dead is a movie that insults philosophy, universities, and ironically Christrianity. But you're right I am getting emotional it's just that when I get pissed off at something I prefer to get pissed off at something that goes out of its way to explicitly and with little to no ambiguity ridicule, marginalize, and strawman everything I stand for on subjects that matter and still do matter in the real world.
Every fanboy has their breakdown. I'm a fanboy of Batman and I've yet to experience that level of disappointment. Thankfully, Batman Returns/Forever/and Robin were in my youth so I could excuse it.
Bob, I like the vast majority of your reviews. They're normally very accurate and professional. However, I've found that I simply cannot take any of your opinions on super-hero movies at face value. This review in particular was more a monologue about how Spider-Man is ruined forever for you and barely a review on the actual movie. And like the last movie, I fully expect this one to be an okay action flick for its super-hero fighting and less the train wreck you seem desperate to get everyone to believe.
I'm honestly just going to have to stop watching your videos on super-heroes and monster movies after ASM1 (I found it okay), Iron Man 3 (terrible movie, like IM2), The Avengers (overly hyped and not as fantastic as you made it out to be) and Pacific Rim (I thought this was one of the dumber movies I've watched) and now this movie. Granted, I have not seen it yet, but this reaction to it seems entirely unwarranted and your record doesn't really make me think I can entirely believe you. It may not be a good movie, but I sincerely doubt it's as awful as you make it out to be.
I know this is all just your opinion, and I respect that I don't always agree with you on movies that aren't super-heroes or monster movies. But my goodness, these reviews in particular just seem to lack objectivity.
"The Amazing Spider-man has no real real narrative structure, every element of the film is shameless set-up for future movies that leave the actual film in question with nothing but bones, none of the film's villains have a cohesive plan that drives the film, the sub-plot with Richard Parker is stupid and unnecessary Harry Osborn feels like a huge retcon, and while the things Bob likes are the same things everyone likes(good action, good web-slinging) everything involving the actual story is SHIT. Just shit." That looks like a pretty good review to me.
"Barely a review on the actual movie." Were my words, I believe. I never claimed he didn't actually review it, but his review takes up the minority of the video. The rest was him throwing a literal fit because he simply doesn't like the direction the movies are going. It was unprofessional, unnecessary and I don't have to expose myself to it by watching any more of his super-hero themed videos. I'm not sure you even read my comment and instead jumped blindly to defend Bob because you can't accept that someone is going to roll their eyes at his overly dramatic antics. I like Bob, but I'm not going to hold him in such esteem that he's above criticism and can't personally be held to a certain standard. If you don't have the same standards as my own, that's fine. It's what having an opinion means, watch and enjoy all his videos. Doesn't mean that I have to do the same, however.
I think I can actually explain why this happens, despite never having experienced it.
Basically, you become highly attached to something. It becomes part of your identity, something you're proud to enjoy, something you absolutely love.
Then it starts getting worse. You ignore the warning signs out of blind nostalgia. You think "This thing is wonderful and incredible and these are just a few slip ups". Then a major dud happens. You brush it off thinking it's just a fluke. Then another happens. And another.
At some point (when that happens depends on your tolerance level and your level of fanboyism over the subject matter), after one dud too many, you'll just sit back and say to yourself "What the hell am I doing? Why do I care about this thing? It's awful". Then you look at all the stuff that belongs to X fandom and it reminds you of how much you loved it, but now it's gotten bad. And you realize that YOU have been feeding it. You let yourself be fooled because you were naive and blinded by your love for the thing.
That kinda sours everything that came before it, because you begin to wonder when things went wrong and why you or anyone else didn't see it coming and try to stop it. You feel like an idiot for being hoodwinked, and you begin to blame everything you loved about the thing because you feel it misled you, blinded you and betrayed you.
At that point there are 2 typical reactions.
Either:
a) "The new stuff doesn't count! I refuse to consider anything outside the old stuff canon, and I will zealously guard myself against future pain!". This is what most sonic fans did when they felt the series fell apart. Seriously. I've met a few online, and some are STILL raging inside.
or:
b) You just can't deal with the fact something you enjoyed betrayed you and it sours everything in the series for you for a long time to come, and you just can't bring yourself to enjoy any of it anymore because it just reminds you of the betrayal you feel you suffered.
Eventually you get over it. But it seems like a natural reaction to lash out at something you feel betrayed you.
.......Actually, come to think of it, I kinda did experience this phenomenon.
Except it wasn't with a fandom, comic, or game. It was with my first girlfriend after she dumped me.
Basically, we were together for 3 years and I loved the hell out of her.
Then, early in our second year, she started giving signs she wasn't interested in me anymore. But she kept bouncing back every time I was considering talking to her about it. Whenever she was in one of those moods and I asked if she was alright, she said everything was great, and not to worry.
Turns out she hadn't had any romantic feelings for all that time and was trying to bring them back, but couldn't.
By the time she gave me "the talk", I had stopped being worried about those moods and just attributed them to stress or something. So it was a sudden crushing experience all at once that made me question how I could have been blind enough not to see it coming, and made me wonder just how many of the good times we'd had that year were genuine and how many she was just gritting her teeth through and oh my GOD I was an idio-*crash and burn for a week, spend a month totally rebooting myself*
The only reason I've managed to maintain a sorta-friendship with her is because I know she was trying her hardest to bring her feelings back. If she'd been leading me on for her own benefit, I would have totally crashed and gotten rid of anything that reminded me of her in the slightest. Instead, she reassured me that it was her fault entirely, and that she was deeply sorry, since I was, quote "the most wonderful person she knows...But I just wasn't the romantic partner for her". That, and hearing from a mutual friend how guilty she felt about it all was enough to make me forgive her entirely and not have either of the above-mentioned reactions. We're still friends, albeit slightly distant ones.
So....Having been very close to that kind of experience, I can understand.
Stop being so over dramatic Bob. The Raimi Spider-man movies where bad too and I like both Spider-man and Sam Raimi they just did not mix well, there was a very good reason that Spider-man 4 was canceled. And while I have not seem Amazing Spider-man 2 the first one was far better than Spider-man 3. We all know you hate Sony for wanting to exploit the franchise but that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the movie.
I just watched this video for the 3rd times. He spends maybe about 2 minutes of actual reviewing. The rest of it is complaining about something that has nothing to do with this movie. I understand he is upset Sony has a plan for the future of Spider-man and it's not going to be sold to marvel anything soon, but I also know you are very intelligent.
What is this "I'm done with movies" crap. Did you really think your review spider man wasn't going to hold on it's own you had to do this crap? I know you don't go into these videos without a plan and wing it based on your actual opinion. I know you plan things so that your opinion appears relevant with the viewers. I also know you understand a great deal of film and how they work. The thing is that this review is the most half assed thing I have ever seen you do. You literally filled 50% of this review with repetition and soft phrases. The 2 minutes of review were just repeated phrases from some first year film class. How in the world do YOU not understand why harry is still mad even though his illness is cured? You mention marvel more than 3 times I believe.
You aren't reviewing films with expert criticism anymore like you used to. I pretty much realized this with your review on the last twilight movie. Everything people think you will like you will hate, and everything people think you will hate you give it some kind of praise that no one would understand unless you have an "expert" level of understanding in film.
Honestly I just think that the movie dream in you died something back. The dream of making the films you love just didn't pay out like you thought. That kid you used to be that couldn't wait to be in front of a screen to be apart of something bigger than everyday life. Are you seriously becoming the thing you hate the most?
He did review the film.. To give you a concise summary "The Amazing Spider-man has no real real narrative structure, every element of the film is shameless set-up for future movies that leave the actual film in question with nothing but bones, none of the film's villains have a cohesive plan that drives the film, the sub-plot with Richard Parker is stupid and unnecessary Harry Osborn feels like a huge retcon, and while the things Bob likes are the same things everyone likes(good action, good web-slinging) everything involving the actual story is SHIT. Just shit." How's that for a review?
Oooookay. I see you are also using 1st year film school phrases without some context. You are telling me its bad that they are setting stuff up for future films AND telling me its stupid they didn't set up harry for this movie from the last one. Also please stop assuming every protagonist has to be this overlord with some diabolical plan from the beginning that gets foiled from the one thing super heroes are set up to do. The parts where you don't know if he is doing this because it will fill a master plan, or he is just really angry and has super powers. That really is the most terrifying part of the film. By the way I love the copy pasting you are doing because you really have nothing else to say other than what Bob said.
This is something I run into a lot whenever people talk about The Amazing Spider-man, more specifically whenever anyone complains that The Amazing Spider-man seems to devote a good chunk of it's setting-up future installments to the detriment of the actual movie, or that a lot of it's important plot points seem to go nowhere people usually respond with something along the lines "Well of course they're setting up future movies. That's how the superhero genre works! Marvel does this all the time! Why is it that it's only a bad thing when Sony does it?" People need to understand that there's a difference between what The MCU does, and what Sony is doing with the new Spider-man franchise. When it comes to laying the groundwork for future installments most of The Marvel movies are actually pretty lax even when it comes to things like direct sequels. In Phase 1 especially most of the big references to future projects show up in the background, and end credits scenes, and the when the movie ends most of the overlying mysteries, huge plot threads,or big villains seem mostly dispersed, and even if there's still some big answered question or sequel hook you never feel like the movie is unsubstantial due to it. Go back and look at Iron Man's 1 & 2, The Hulk, Thor, or Captain America. Does the story feel incomplete? Do you feel like too much of the movie was devoted to something that didn't pay off? Do you feel like parts of the movie were edited out because the film makers wanted to save something for a sequel? That's the problem with The Amazing Spider-man's 1 and 2, the final product feels insubstantial because of crazed attempt to make a sprawling franchise out of only 2 movies. Back in the day we'd scoff at a bad movie for trying to tease a sequel in the last few minutes, but today "Eh. Yeah Doctor Conner's history, motivation, and personality is slapdash, and yeah we kinda don't understand where Peter's powers come from, and yeah the subplot about Richard Parker and his wife goes nowhere, and yeah we're not entirely sure why Oscorp is doing anything, but they'll be a sequel so just roll with it.". I'd be more willing to have more faith in these movies if I liked the direction or if I was sure that Sony and Mark Webb had a well thought out plan for this franchise, but with the excising of entire characters, and plots points from movies that desperately need them, I really don't think anyone knows what they're doing.
I feel for you, Bob, even though I haven't seen it yet.
I too, LOVE Spider-Man. Unequivocally. He was my favorite hero from when I was FIVE. I have played video games, read comics, bought t-shirts, watched movies and TV shows, ANYthing Spider-Man...
I STILL play the games, watch the shows, read the books, etc.
He was always the upbeat but snarky vigilante, often pitted against enemies that he was not necessarily stronger or more powerful than. I projected myself and my childhood struggles into Spidey more than have probably should have, but my fandom was a comfort.
If this movie was that bad to do THIS much to you... I don't know if I'm gonna be able to take it...
Spider-Man 3 was merely annoying. It at least had certain salvageable overtones, and focus on telling a conclusive story as opposed to shameless franchise building.
I don't know if I have to see this for myself... just to see how bad this yearning to be the next MCU is getting for other comic book films.
If this is the case... we need this to FAIL... Spidey NEEDS to be in the MCU somehow.
Bob, I am so sorry. Have you ever watched Spectacular Spider-Man?
Bob, I say this as your friend, and for your well being. I know it's tough, I know it's gonna go against your nature...but you need to let this one go. This was a big video, a heavy video, and I can feel for you, Spiderman fan to Spiderman fan.
But let this be the only attention you give to this film. Don't dedicate next week's Big Picture to further explaining how bad this movie was. Don't put up screenshots of it in future videos when discussing what a piece of crap movie is. Don't do a 7 minute "Worst 10 of 2014" video and have ASM2 at number one and taking up about 2 of those 7 minutes.
Just try to put it out of your mind, don't dwell on it. You'll feel better, and the internet will be much kinder to you in the long run.
This review reminds me of how I felt after Conan and Man of Steel, both terrible reboots and terrible movies. Looks like this franchise is quickly digging its six foot hole, and that might be for the best.
Yeah, I don't care if this makes me sound sadistic but...I was laughing listening to this review.
Ok, I get that he doesn't like the movie, fine, he's a movie critic and his job is to give opinions on movies, but listening to an adult talk about watching a movie about a fictional character in a fictional universe with a tone that felt more akin to listening to someone describe how the person who murdered their parents was let off on a technicality is just really sort of insane, sad, and funny at the same time.
Everybody has something they're deeply "into" as a thing (especially geeks/nerds. That's what that whole concept is about). Doesn't matter if it's real or not, if you've got the imagination you make it real to yourself. Nostalgia means re-kindling childlike wonder and imagination. That's what a lot of people feel like when they look at Spider-Man. Seeing the thing you love turn to shit in front of your eyes is a gut-punch no matter if it's "real" or not.
For him to wish for a big-budget movie such as this to fail is also all sorts of messed up, especially considering it's not like this is some sort of political or social "message" movie with which he strongly disagrees with the point it's trying to make. Stone, Foxx, and Garfield will be fine if the movie flops, but there are lots of writers, special effects folks, set workers, etc. who's livelihood depends on the studio they work for doing well. To say you hope that their jobs are put in jeopardy because "boo-hoo, I don't like this Spiderman!" is petty beyond belief. Just don't freakin' watch the movie, and go read one of the 40 years worth of available Spider-man comics if you want the Spiderman that "you like".
I'm pretty sure he acknowledged that in the video. Did it really sound like he wanted to see people's lives torn to pieces because of one movie he didn't like (well 2, but you know what i mean)? Nobody wishes to see a single mom or dad kicked out on the street or yanked back to WalMart because their animation studio shut down. When people say they want something like a "crash" or "fail" to happen it just means they wish there was a reason for the thing that offends them to stop. Sadly the only way to stop a franchise is with negative cashflow.
Oh good lord, I cannot believe how pathetic all this whining is. Seriously, a movie that the review even admits is mediocre, not horrible, causes an existential crisis? Good grief. I honestly believe that Bob doesn't WANT to like these movies. He has an idea in his head as to how it SHOULD be, and when it doesn't do that he rails against it. He went on for months about the first ASM, and I worry this will be worse.
I really feel that whenever it comes to things Bob likes, he is completely unreliable as a reviewer. He very much lets his personal bias into the film. If he wants to like something, he will add praise to it relentless and ignore the flaws. I remember in his Captain America review where he praised how awesome Red Skull was, when really he did very little personally in the film except twirl his mustache and be evil. Or how he gushed over Pacific Rim, because OMG GIANT ROBOTS FIGHTING MONSTERS OOGOOOO, ignoring the films massive flaws in plot and pacing. This goes the other way with the Spider-Man films. Where he goes in wanting to hate it because Sony is using them to keep the rights, so he completely blows all the flaws out of proportion. He is like the O'reilly of movie reviews.
Frankly, I think people are forgetting all the flaws of the original Spider-Man films. It's easy to look back on them with the nostalgia goggles, since most of us were likely teens or younger when we saw them, but they are really not that great. Tobey Maguire was absolutely boring as the lead role. He didn't crack wise, he barely emoted, he didn't do ANYTHING. He lacked the snark and attitude of Spider-Man that makes him so fun. He was just kind of there. For all crap people give Andrew Garfield, he actually acts like Spider-Man. He makes jokes and is awesome as Spider-Man, but also feels like a real person in a way Tobey never did. The fight scenes also feel more like Spider-Man too. He's fast and agile, flipping around with movements similar to those of the comics. Mary Jane was a boring blank character, and was used the same way in every film. To make Peter have his existential crisis about being Spider-Man, while being kidnap fodder for the climax. Seriously, all three featured the villain kidnapping Mary Jane. The complaints about Andrew Garfield's "emo Parker" also feel flat given that a large plot thrust in Spider-Man 2 was that Peter was so upset about how hard his life was that he literally DEPRESSED HIS POWERS AWAY. I know that Bob has a huge crush on Sam Raimi (see his reviews of Drag Me to Hell and Oz), and it seems like many others seem to as well.
Basically, people need to stop taking Bob's reviews at face value. The man clearly has enormous biases, and while it might be used as a review source he should not be your deciding factor. Do some research, check Rotten Tomatoes, or something. See if Bob's views are the norm or a deviation. Writing the movie and hoping it flops because a guy on the internet said it was bad is the height of ignorance.
It's clear the series is just a way for Sony to milk the property for the forseeable future, and to the target audience, children who have essentially no concept of whether a film is good or bad (I know this because I was one). At this stage what I'd like to see is a Mighty No. 9 kind of Spiderman ripoff that features in actual decent movies, with the same spirit of making good content from something the holder of the rights is incapable of managing. But I don't really care about Spiderman, along with the other straight do-gooder types. I'll be happy with all the other myriad superhero movies. But you have my sympathies for being a fan at a time like this.
Comic Sans said:
Or how he gushed over Pacific Rim, because OMG GIANT ROBOTS FIGHTING MONSTERS OOGOOOO, ignoring the films massive flaws in plot and pacing.
To be fair, I watched Pacific Rim and even while fully conscious and aware of the horrible plot, characterisation, setup, dialogue, anticlimactic ending, and many other things, consider it an incredibly good movie just for the giant robots fighting monsters. Possibly I have the same bias, but I'm just saying that it makes the movie completely worthwhile for anyone partial to that, and I think if viewers don't like giant robots fighting they probably know already.
MovieBob is the kind of critic where instead of making a neutral evaluation you know his tastes and can tell what you will or will not like based on, but not necessarily correlating with, what the does or doesn't recommend.
Agree with everything you said about Bob, but to be fair, at least with Pacific Rim he got things right. If one walks into a movie like Pacific Rim and expects a good coherent plot, that's pretty majorly missing the point of the movie. It's like watching a Godzilla movie for the "deep, involving struggles" of the human characters and then getting pissed that that's not there. Or hating on an action movie for not having a good romance subplot, and so on. So for that at least Bob got it right by not getting bogged down with the plot.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
