SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING starring Tom Holland (7/28/17) 3 3

[Bosco685]

Just now, fantastic_four said:

That's true whether you're looking at Tomatometer or average rating.  So why point it out at all?  You seem to be arguing against using metascores at all to compare two films.

I think you are reading yourself into a corner. Please show me where I noted metascores isn't a good gauge of comparing films. I bet if I took the time to search, I can even point out I have made the same statement about looking at those point scales.

[fantastic_four]

2 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

4 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

That's true whether you're looking at Tomatometer or average rating.  So why point it out at all?  You seem to be arguing against using metascores at all to compare two films.

I think you are reading yourself into a corner. Please show me where I noted metascores isn't a good gauge of comparing films. I bet if I took the time to search, I can even point out I have made the same statement about looking at those point scales.

You didn't explicitly say it, I was speculating as to why you're pointing out a weakness in comparing the average rating of two films versus tomatometer when the exact same weakness exists regardless of which of the two scores you're using to compare.  Only you know why you went on that tangent.  

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, fantastic_four said:

You didn't explicitly say it, I was speculating as to why you're pointing out a weakness in comparing the average rating of two films versus tomatometer when the exact same weakness exists regardless of which of the two scores you're using to compare.  Only you know why you went on that tangent.  

I didn't go off on a tangent. You are the one that stated I noted the Average Rating isn't an Average Rating and you can't use metascores to compare movies. You assumed that!

But if you are going to make a statement of what serves as a comparison rule like the Average Rating (which I am in agreement with), good point to also note also ensuring you are comparing statistically like items. I just kidded you about it with a and   and you took it as a statement against using Average Rating. Go back and read what I posted, and I never said your Average Rating statement was wrong. It just was incomplete in what to consider - but not flawed.

Heck, I've had the same thoughts more than once - and even looked at IMDb's scoring

[Get Marwood & I]

Evening.

I saw the film yesterday and unfortunately it was exactly as I expected it to be, i.e. a country mile away from the Spidey story that I know and appreciated the portrayal of in the first film in 2002. History repeated itself in one sense though - I was the only person at the screening:

Sorry about the hairy knee there. Most unattractive.

This happened to me in 2002 when I saw the first Spidey film in Ireland. Being the only one at the screening has many benefits, not least the ability to say whatever you like at whatever level without upsetting anyone. The ability to break wind with alarming ferocity, safe in the knowledge no one can be troubled by it but yourself and, perhaps, the projector man, is another benefit of sole screening occupancy. That’s me I guess. Always being where others are not.

Having seen and hated all the Iron Man, sorry, Spider-Man trailers, I did not expect to see a traditional Spidey film and was quite prepared for a cast lacking all the key personnel and settings. No Gwen, no JJJ, no Bugle, no Harry, no frail Aunt May etc. The film was nearer in spirit to the Superior Spider-Man with all its gadgetry than the Spidey story I grew up with reading issues 1-185.

What I did hope to see was some strong characterisation, stunning fight scenes, emotion and a sense of rooting for the little guy. I got none of that. The only character I felt any empathy with was the Vulture, firstly due to Michael Keaton’s performance – the highlight of the film – but also for the spirit of his ‘fighting against the people at the top’ existence. They indeed do not care about us.

I have no idea why I was supposed to care about Peter and Liz’s relationship, or indeed care why either of them were interested in each other in the first place. Compared to the Dunst and the Stone, this Liz character left me cold. I was heartily tired of seeing and hearing ‘Stark’ every 5 minutes. Stark is great in Iron Man films. This is supposed to be a Spider-Man film. The suit gadgetry felt so wrong to me. The Spider-Man I know does not need this stuff. Nor would he want it.

There was no stand out action scene. Today’s producers and directors have all the tricks of the CGI trade at their disposal but do not seem to know what to do with it. Where was the scene to rival or – God forbid – better the complexity and flair of the Spider-Man 2 train fight with Doc Ock? The scene where Spidey was hanging on to the curiously unguarded Avengers aircraft at the end went on forever but gave us nothing. No flair, no cleverness, no innate understanding of visually stunning sequential action scenes.

There was not one musical piece that struck me throughout. No character themes of any note (The Red Capes are coming floored me on first hearing, as did Beautiful Lie).

The dialogue was snappy and smart in places and I chuckled a few times at the teen antics. But there was no real story to speak of, no emotional direction or grit. No one to root for or care about. No relationship to savour (much as I disliked the ASM reboot, the Peter and Gwen relationship was beautifully realised and acted and I cared when Gwen bit the dust).

I walked home after the Captain America bit at the end of the credits (Avengers! Avengers! Avengers!) trying to work out why a man who has adored Spidey for 40 years can dislike a Spidey film. I say again – the world moves on, and the Spidey of the 60’s and 70’s struggles to fit in to it if it does not evolve. Maybe I would love this film if I was 16 having read Superior Spider-Man as a twelve year old. But the truth of the matter is that I’m unlikely to like any Spider-Man film from this point. We were lucky to get the first two Raimi films when we did. They weren’t perfect, but they did invoke the story, spirit, setting and charm of the original books. This new realisation of Spidey will garner a new set of young fans for sure. But I don’t think it will inspire them to still be fans in 40 years from now. It was just another piece of gimmicky, soulless throwaway spectacle.

I’ve forgotten it already.

Without sounding doom-laden, and I’m reconciled to it, ‘my’ comic world appears to have gone. For me, Modern Life is Rubbish.

Now, those of you who agree please form an orderly queue to post your likes 

Everyone else, just one second while I arrange to release the hounds!  

 

[piper]

@Marwood & I , I'm sorry that you didn't like it. I disagree with your thoughts on this movie entirely and that's ok. 

Superior Spider-man was a fun read by the way...

[Get Marwood & I]

23 minutes ago, piper said:

@Marwood & I , I'm sorry that you didn't like it. I disagree with your thoughts on this movie entirely and that's ok. 

Superior Spider-man was a fun read by the way...

Release the hounds! 

[bababooey]

28 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

Release the hounds! 

[piper]

3 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Release the hounds! 

Release the Kraken!

[reddwarf666222]

13 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I didn't go off on a tangent. You are the one that stated I noted the Average Rating isn't an Average Rating and you can't use metascores to compare movies. You assumed that!

But if you are going to make a statement of what serves as a comparison rule like the Average Rating (which I am in agreement with), good point to also note also ensuring you are comparing statistically like items. I just kidded you about it with a and   and you took it as a statement against using Average Rating. Go back and read what I posted, and I never said your Average Rating statement was wrong. It just was incomplete in what to consider - but not flawed.

Heck, I've had the same thoughts more than once - and even looked at IMDb's scoring

I've got to side with FF.

Let's use Ghostbusters 2016 as an example a film that was certified fresh with 73 percent of the critics liking the film. That means 73 percent of the critics gave the film a passing grade. That doesn't really say on a scale of 1 to 10 of what critics thought of the film. Metacritic is a better example to use because the film got an average of a 60 a much more reliable number if a person to judge watching a film or not.

The best thing RT is to look for critics after you watch the film that viewed it similar as you and keep a list to see which critics you match up with the most. In time you can just look yo those critics for reviews. Metacritic is the same way as a template to use.

[jsilverjanet]

5 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Evening.

I saw the film yesterday and unfortunately it was exactly as I expected it to be, i.e. a country mile away from the Spidey story that I know and appreciated the portrayal of in the first film in 2002. History repeated itself in one sense though - I was the only person at the screening:

Sorry about the hairy knee there. Most unattractive.

This happened to me in 2002 when I saw the first Spidey film in Ireland. Being the only one at the screening has many benefits, not least the ability to say whatever you like at whatever level without upsetting anyone. The ability to break wind with alarming ferocity, safe in the knowledge no one can be troubled by it but yourself and, perhaps, the projector man, is another benefit of sole screening occupancy. That’s me I guess. Always being where others are not.

Having seen and hated all the Iron Man, sorry, Spider-Man trailers, I did not expect to see a traditional Spidey film and was quite prepared for a cast lacking all the key personnel and settings. No Gwen, no JJJ, no Bugle, no Harry, no frail Aunt May etc. The film was nearer in spirit to the Superior Spider-Man with all its gadgetry than the Spidey story I grew up with reading issues 1-185.

What I did hope to see was some strong characterisation, stunning fight scenes, emotion and a sense of rooting for the little guy. I got none of that. The only character I felt any empathy with was the Vulture, firstly due to Michael Keaton’s performance – the highlight of the film – but also for the spirit of his ‘fighting against the people at the top’ existence. They indeed do not care about us.

I have no idea why I was supposed to care about Peter and Liz’s relationship, or indeed care why either of them were interested in each other in the first place. Compared to the Dunst and the Stone, this Liz character left me cold. I was heartily tired of seeing and hearing ‘Stark’ every 5 minutes. Stark is great in Iron Man films. This is supposed to be a Spider-Man film. The suit gadgetry felt so wrong to me. The Spider-Man I know does not need this stuff. Nor would he want it.

There was no stand out action scene. Today’s producers and directors have all the tricks of the CGI trade at their disposal but do not seem to know what to do with it. Where was the scene to rival or – God forbid – better the complexity and flair of the Spider-Man 2 train fight with Doc Ock? The scene where Spidey was hanging on to the curiously unguarded Avengers aircraft at the end went on forever but gave us nothing. No flair, no cleverness, no innate understanding of visually stunning sequential action scenes.

There was not one musical piece that struck me throughout. No character themes of any note (The Red Capes are coming floored me on first hearing, as did Beautiful Lie).

The dialogue was snappy and smart in places and I chuckled a few times at the teen antics. But there was no real story to speak of, no emotional direction or grit. No one to root for or care about. No relationship to savour (much as I disliked the ASM reboot, the Peter and Gwen relationship was beautifully realised and acted and I cared when Gwen bit the dust).

I walked home after the Captain America bit at the end of the credits (Avengers! Avengers! Avengers!) trying to work out why a man who has adored Spidey for 40 years can dislike a Spidey film. I say again – the world moves on, and the Spidey of the 60’s and 70’s struggles to fit in to it if it does not evolve. Maybe I would love this film if I was 16 having read Superior Spider-Man as a twelve year old. But the truth of the matter is that I’m unlikely to like any Spider-Man film from this point. We were lucky to get the first two Raimi films when we did. They weren’t perfect, but they did invoke the story, spirit, setting and charm of the original books. This new realisation of Spidey will garner a new set of young fans for sure. But I don’t think it will inspire them to still be fans in 40 years from now. It was just another piece of gimmicky, soulless throwaway spectacle.

I’ve forgotten it already.

Without sounding doom-laden, and I’m reconciled to it, ‘my’ comic world appears to have gone. For me, Modern Life is Rubbish.

Now, those of you who agree please form an orderly queue to post your likes 

Everyone else, just one second while I arrange to release the hounds!  

 

I agree with a lot of this. It didn't feel like Spider-Man movie. I know "the fans" love the idea of Marvel/Disney having spidey back home but at what cost?

If Keaton isn't in it, this movie would have sucked. ASM2 has better action scenes.

 

[tv horror]

From the 40" screen I can see a giant Gandolf  shouting at Marwood "You shall not pass...Wind!"  

 

I know Spider-man as a whole is aimed at children but this movie left me cold, I liked the first Amazing Spider-man movie as the performances were spot on but Tom Holland just came across as a 90lb weakling. There was no sense of power it was a knock off Iron man, the suit was Spidey not the kid. Fair enough he is supposed to be 15 years old and even the scene trapped under the rubble came across as cardboard rocks. No Spider-man at this age would back off after the Vultures threat as he has yet to gain the confidence of his powers and he seen the Vulture as a monster. Unfortunately the sequel will have a ton of baggage character wise, May knowing, a sidekick Ned plus M.J (only likeable character) and the quiz team. Let him move away from this set up baggage and maybe the sequel will work.    

[Get Marwood & I]

4 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

I agree with a lot of this. It didn't feel like Spider-Man movie. I know "the fans" love the idea of Marvel/Disney having spidey back home but at what cost?

If Keaton isn't in it, this movie would have sucked. ASM2 has better action scenes.

 

The action scenes in the second Raimi were really well crafted. The train fight, Doc Ock waking up in hospital, the reactor presentation scene - all were great examples of story telling. What was clever, new or impressive about the actions scenes in the new film? They were all crash bang wallop blurry add ons. 

[Get Marwood & I]

3 hours ago, tv horror said:

From the 40" screen I can see a giant Gandolf  shouting at Marwood "You shall not pass...Wind!"  

 

I know Spider-man as a whole is aimed at children but this movie left me cold, I liked the first Amazing Spider-man movie as the performances were spot on but Tom Holland just came across as a 90lb weakling. There was no sense of power it was a knock off Iron man, the suit was Spidey not the kid. Fair enough he is supposed to be 15 years old and even the scene trapped under the rubble came across as cardboard rocks. No Spider-man at this age would back off after the Vultures threat as he has yet to gain the confidence of his powers and he seen the Vulture as a monster. Unfortunately the sequel will have a ton of baggage character wise, May knowing, a sidekick Ned plus M.J (only likeable character) and the quiz team. Let him move away from this set up baggage and maybe the sequel will work.    

At least I could change seats easily when the smell got too bad. 

[Bosco685]

5 hours ago, reddwarf666222 said:

I've got to side with FF.

Let's use Ghostbusters 2016 as an example a film that was certified fresh with 73 percent of the critics liking the film. That means 73 percent of the critics gave the film a passing grade. That doesn't really say on a scale of 1 to 10 of what critics thought of the film. Metacritic is a better example to use because the film got an average of a 60 a much more reliable number if a person to judge watching a film or not.

The best thing RT is to look for critics after you watch the film that viewed it similar as you and keep a list to see which critics you match up with the most. In time you can just look yo those critics for reviews. Metacritic is the same way as a template to use.

We are thinking the same on a 10-point scale. FF started by noting  the RT Average Rating was better when comparing movies (which I agree with). It just got lost in his confusion over having a larger contributor pool.

[Hulksdaddy1]

Saw it last night. Nope, not good, IMO. Total whiff on who Spidey is.

[Get Marwood & I]

13 hours ago, piper said:

16 hours ago, Marwood & I said:

Release the hounds! 

Release the Kraken!

I did, about half way through @piper. That's the last time I have a full English before a film 

[Artboy99]

On ‎2017‎/‎07‎/‎17 at 1:51 PM, ComicConnoisseur said:

It has the highest rating ever for a Spider-Man movie on rotten tomatoes. I don't get  what you mean that it isn't connecting across the broader audience like the original SM 1 and 2 did?

Do you mean it is not connecting with older men like the first two did?

That is the trouble in that those 40-50 year olds you saw the first Sony Spider-Man with are now 55 to 65 years old!  I would say it would be hard for a 65 year old man to relate to a teen Spider-Man.So I have no problem with Marvel marketing it to a younger audience.

Let the younger generation have Spider-Man. 

We hard-core Spider-Man fans got Thor now. lol.

 

They can create a story where the teen Spider-man character has things to deal with and discover and in creating that any age group of males will relate. That 65 year old man you are referring to was once  teenage boy.

I quite liked the movie, the things I didn't like are related mostly to the super suit that can do anything. Seems less about Peter discovering what powers he has and what he can do and more about what the suit can do.

[kimik]

17 hours ago, piper said:

@Marwood & I , I'm sorry that you didn't like it. I disagree with your thoughts on this movie entirely and that's ok. 

 

@piper Hey, how come you got so upset with my views on the turd that was Ant-Man but are being so nice with other boardies? 

Edited July 19, 2017 by kimik

[Get Marwood & I]

7 minutes ago, Artboy99 said:

They can create a story where the teen Spider-man character has things to deal with and discover and in creating that any age group of males will relate. That 65 year old man you are referring to was once  teenage boy.

I quite liked the movie, the things I didn't like are related mostly to the super suit that can do anything. Seems less about Peter discovering what powers he has and what he can do and more about what the suit can do.

I agree. And did I miss it, or was there not one single reference to Spidey senses tingling? Then again, why would you need it if the suit is doing everything. The more I dwell on it, the less I like it. 

[Artboy99]

7 minutes ago, Marwood & I said:

I agree. And did I miss it, or was there not one single reference to Spidey senses tingling? Then again, why would you need it if the suit is doing everything. The more I dwell on it, the less I like it. 

One of my major complaints about the film.