• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

SPIDER-MAN 2 from Marvel & Sony (7/5/19)
4 4

705 posts in this topic

Read the entire confirmed proposed synopsis on 

Spoiler

wikipedia and reddit, both were pretty much the same.

so I can't take EVERYTHING as definitive truth but from what I read I feel just "eh" towards it.  It's not to say I won't be first in line for a ticket, however it just doesn't feel uber exciting.  Not bashing it before the world-wide release, just being speculative.

Edited by sagekilz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Straw-Man said:

he was a big homecoming detractor, and had to back off dour [rhymes with gower!] prediction after dour prediction as its numbers, critical and b.o., came in.  simply not a fan.  which is ok, or course.

Actually, my first two posts on the subject are included below. I gave the movie a generally favorable review. My issue with it is that Spider-man, who is Marvel's biggest selling character of merchandise around the world - outselling everyone else combined - ISN'T their biggest movie star. They ran that movie for 5 months to get it up to 334 Million and it still isn't even close to the first two Raimi movies.

I just think their biggest merchandised star should be their biggest movie star. He's not. Iron Man was.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.23.31 PM.png

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.25.40 PM.png

Edited by Chuck Gower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2019 at 9:56 AM, AmazingComics413 said:

I saw the film last night. Can confirm that 95% of the above is correct.

I liked it better than Homecoming (which I thought was good and a necessary step up from the Garfield films). But it's not in the same league as the first two Maguire films. I'm not sure rank-and-file Spidy die-hards will think it's much better than good.

Overall? B+ / 3.5 stars out of five. Don't see this breaking records (or the $1 billion barrier) but should be a solid $700-$800 milliion WW entry in the MCU canon.

Spoiler

 

The good:

  • The story and pacing are solid. With the origin out of the way, it's a decent high-school-aged Peter Parker story from the jump. And it's not bogged down by multiple villains so doesn't feel bloated like Spider-Man 3 or ASM 2.
  • Holland's acting. He's beginning to edge out Toby Maguire as my favorite movie Spider-Man. Really reminiscent of an early Jamie Bell to me (and that's a compliment).
  • MJ's acting. Good character arc & chemistry between them.
  • Angourie Rice as Betty Brant. Cute and nails the role. Seen her before as Ryan Gosling's daughter in The Nice Guys. Could really break out (Scarlett Johannsen-style) with a few more major roles.
  • The special effects -- especially the first Mysterio attack on Peter. It's some fun Inception-level reality warping. And Mysterio looks perfect.
  • The humor
  • Nice twists in both after-credits sequences (as detailed in the Reddit spoiler). Especially seeing JK Simmons' return.
  • The blip. It was fun seeing how the HS (and world) has adapted to the return following the undoing of Thanos's snap, which leaves 1/2 the population five years older than the rest.
  • Spidey suits -- the film does a good job of balancing Stark tech/EDITH/Iron Spidey with Peter working more naturally (as in the first attack and as Night Monkey), showing he's just as much a hero "without the suit."
  • Nice fan service with the Audi license plate in the fire elemental scene -- It started with "ASM 28" -- first appearance of Molten Man. I wish I'd caught the rest of the numbers. Folks had previously pointed out the trailer featured the first appearance of Hydroman on the boat during the water elemental scene. Wondering if there were additional easter eggs like that I missed.

The bad:

  • I liked it, but I think a lot of Spidey fans will put off by the film's humor - especially in the first third. As a previous poster noted, it's far closer in tone to Ant-Man than the Raimi films or even ASM. You like seeing a campy take on Spider-Man? This is for you.
  • Accidental-drone-strike-on-his-classmates scene. Wish they'd introduced EDITH tech in a more serious way.
  • Mysterio's characterization. Haven't read any Mysterio comics in 25 years but...um...he's basically a film director? Weak.
  • Gyllenhaal's acting. He's good in the quieter scenes, but he way over-acted in his major psycho monologue rant when we learn his team are all disgruntled ex-Stark employees. His take is just not in the same league with Keaton's performance, or even Thomas Haden Church's performance as Sandman back in the day.

Again - overall, it's just good, not great. Like an average James Bond flick, and that's okay. Because it's a huge step up from the bad Spidey films (Spidey 3 and ASM 2).

And I'd be perfectly content seeing new Spider-Man films just like this one every three years for the foreseeable future.

  •  
Edited by Gatsby77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

I saw the film last night. Can confirm that 95% of the above is correct.

I liked it better than Homecoming (which I thought was good and a necessary step up from the Garfield films). But it's not in the same league as the first two Maguire films. I'm not sure rank-and-file Spidy die-hards will think it's much better than good.

Overall? B+ / 3.5 stars out of five. Don't see this breaking records (or the $1 billion barrier) but should be a solid $700-$800 milliion WW entry in the MCU canon.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

The good:

  • The story and pacing are solid. With the origin out of the way, it's a decent high-school-aged Peter Parker story from the jump. And it's not bogged down by multiple villains so doesn't feel bloated like Spider-Man 3 or ASM 2.
  • Holland's acting. He's beginning to edge out Toby Maguire as my favorite movie Spider-Man. Really reminiscent of an early Jamie Bell to me (and that's a compliment).
  • MJ's acting. Good character arc & chemistry between them.
  • Angourie Rice as Betty Brant. Cute and nails the role. Seen her before as Ryan Gosling's daughter in The Nice Guys. Could really break out (Scarlett Johannsen-style) with a few more major roles.
  • The special effects -- especially the first Mysterio attack on Peter. It's some fun Inception-level reality warping. And Mysterio looks perfect.
  • The humor
  • Nice twists in both after-credits sequences (as detailed in the Reddit spoiler). Especially seeing JK Simmons' return.
  • The blip. It was fun seeing how the HS (and world) has adapted to the return following the undoing of Thanos's snap, which leaves 1/2 the population five years older than the rest.
  • Spidey suits -- the film does a good job of balancing Stark tech/EDITH/Iron Spidey with Peter working more naturally (as in the first attack and as Night Monkey), showing he's just as much a hero "without the suit."
  • Nice fan service with the Audi license plate in the fire elemental scene -- It started with "ASM 28" -- first appearance of Molten Man. I wish I'd caught the rest of the numbers. Folks had previously pointed out the trailer featured the first appearance of Hydroman on the boat during the water elemental scene. Wondering if there were additional easter eggs like that I missed.

The bad:

  • I liked it, but I think a lot of Spidey fans will put off by the film's humor - especially in the first third. As a previous poster noted, it's far closer in tone to Ant-Man than the Raimi films or even ASM. You like seeing a campy take on Spider-Man? This is for you.
  • Accidental-drone-strike-on-his-classmates scene. Wish they'd introduced EDITH tech in a more serious way.
  • Mysterio's characterization. Haven't read any Mysterio comics in 25 years but...um...he's basically a film director? Weak.
  • Gyllenhaal's acting. He's good in the quieter scenes, but he way over-acted in his major psycho monologue rant when we learn his team are all disgruntled ex-Stark employees. His take is just not in the same league with Keaton's performance, or even Thomas Haden Church's performance as Sandman back in the day.

Again - overall, it's just good, not great. Like an average James Bond flick, and that's okay. Because it's a huge step up from the bad Spidey films (Spidey 3 and ASM 2).

And I'd be perfectly content seeing new Spider-Man films just like this one every three years for the foreseeable future.

  •  

on its way to $200MM in China, so $1BB is quite achievable. $325MM US, $500MM Int'l, $200MM China

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think after the 3rd film they should move to adult peter and friends. probably introduce the osborns in part 3.

I like the other spoilers better sounded like a better film.

ah MJ the character they never got right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

I think after the 3rd film they should move to adult peter and friends. probably introduce the osborns in part 3.

I like the other spoilers better sounded like a better film.

ah MJ the character they never got right

I actually think MJ in Far From Home was the best portrayal yet.

She is far smarter/sassier here in than in the previus versions - while still acting like a believable high schooler. She's not a drop-dead gorgeous white redhead, but the portrayal itself and how she's written is stronger than that of Emma Stone or Kirsten Dunst.

Personally, it's far harder me to take the nerdy friend and nerdy bully portrayals of Ned Leeds and Flash Thompson. They are so far removed from their comic book counterparts in both looks *and* personality in Far From Home that I sometimes forgot they were the same characters from the comics. If anything, Brad reps the classic Flash Thompson here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I actually think MJ in Far From Home was the best portrayal yet.

She is far smarter/sassier here in than in the previus versions - while still acting like a believable high schooler. She's not a drop-dead gorgeous white redhead, but the portrayal itself and how she's written is stronger than that of Emma Stone or Kirsten Dunst.

 Personally, it's far harder me to take the nerdy friend and nerdy bully portrayals of Ned Leeds and Flash Thompson. They are so far removed from their comic book counterparts in both looks *and* personality in Far From Home that I sometimes forgot they were the same characters from the comics. If anything, Brad reps the classic Flash Thompson here.

Everyone is far removed from the comic book counter parts. This barely resembles Spider-man comics in anyway other than the names. 

Also Emma Stone was Gwen Stacy not MJ

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, jsilverjanet said:

Everyone is far removed from the comic book counter parts. This barely resembles Spider-man comics in anyway other than the names. 

Also Emma Stone was Gwen Stacy not MJ

 

Sure.

Honestly, I haven't kept track since they did the ASM 121 Gwen storyline (but with MJ, not Gwen) in the first film way back in 2002.

But this one -- and the characters --worked for me - and was better than Homecoming - which means it's the best live-action Spider-Man since Spider-Man 2.

Although, as a lot of critics have noted, it's not nearly as good as Into the Spiderverse.

That said, I expect a lot of boardies will dislike it, since we've got:

- an overtly teenage / high school-aged Peter and friends

- A ton of Iron Spidey / Iron Man tech (which, again, dates in the comics back 15 years, since right before Civil War).

- Ethnically diverse versions of MJ, Ned and Flash.

- Also, the second end credits scene, which

Spoiler

pulls an Iron Man 3, and reveals Nick Fuy wasn't in the movie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
4 4