Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: Spiderman

E' una merdata

 E' una merdata
 
E sei già il secondo che lo scrive.
Ora per convincerci meglio, non potresti motivare con più di queste 3 
misere parole, il tuo laconico giudizio?
Te ne saranno grati tutti coloro risparmieranno tempo e denaro, grazie 
alle tue dettagliate e motivate spiegazioni.
 
Maurus
 
 

misere parole, il tuo laconico giudizio?
 
Non l'ho ancora visto (forse vado questa sera), quindi non mi esprimo;
comunque ho letto qualcosa su rec.arts.movies.current-films:
 
[SPOILER? boh!]
 
 |By the time the climactic battle turns out to be yet another showdown
 |atop a huge skyscraper, it's clear that the movie doesn't have a
 |single original idea going for it.
 
 |"The Daily Beast" says it's "..."the best superhero movie since 'The
 |Dark Knight'..." which is pretty high praise considering that "Thor",
 |"Captain America" and "The Avengers" all came in between, and that it
 |is "...the best Spider-Man movie, period..." 
 |Of course the climactic battle occurs atop a skyscraper: its a
 |freakin' Spider-Man movie. And of course it is thin on "original"
 |ideas: it's based on a comic book that has been around for 50 years
 |and is a reboot of the film franchise that just started 8 years ago
 |and retells the origins of the character. However, it corrects several
 |bits of Spider-Man canon that the original trilogy got "wrong" (from
 |skipping Gwen and going straight to MJ to organic web shooters to
 |Maguire's perpetual "I'm too busy being about to cry from
 |sadness/wonder" to be much of a smartass), presents a fan favorite
 |villain that those movies foreshadowed but never brought to life, and
 |brings a little bit of the retconned "Ultimate Spider-Man" plotline to
 |add a couple of new (to film) twists to the story.
 
 |For instance in picking out the blurb you chose as representative
 |(which is from one of the only 24% negative reviews on that site) you
 |passed over the positive 76% one that says Andrew Garfield is to Tobey
 |Maguire as Peter Parker/Spider-Man as Sean Connery is to Roger Moore
 |as James Bond. That speaks for volumes of "difference" right there.
 |Several of the reviews also praise the "chemistry" between Garfield
 |and Stone as being far and away more believable than the Maguire/Dunst
 |pairing of Raimi's trilogy
 
 |It was enjoyable enough but the doubters had a point about the
 |franchise being rebooted too soon and the iffy prospects of going
 |through the Spider-Man origin story yet again.  I couldn't get past
 |the feeling that even though it's all very well done and well-paced
 |for a superhero movie (which is to say it has a coherent plot and goes
 |whole scenes without anything over-the-top happening) it's all stuff
 |we've seen before.  The level of appreciation from the audience wasn't
 |anything near the appreciation Avengers got at the showing I went to,
 |and I saw Spider-Man the first showing on its first full day in
 |release.  But even then, in a packed house, there was no applause
 |[...] The main problem is that while there's nothing much
 |wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man, it's only been ten years since the
 |Raimi version and his version is still better.  It's not like
 |Christopher Nolan saving Batman after Joel Schumacher killed the
 |franchise.
 |
 |The 3D was really unspectacular and understated.  You might as well
 |see it in 3D but I bet it doesn't lose much in 2D.
 
 |The two principles, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, where *way* more
 |interesting than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in the original.
 |And that's the thing about superhero movies--they tend 
 |to lapse into special effects extravaganzas, and then when you do have
 |characters that you can care about--"Thor" and "Iron Man" come to 
 |mind--it's really a breath of fresh air.
 
 |Webb cleverly returns Peter Parker's 
 |transformation to a high-school setting, and offers up a funnier, more
 |relationship-oriented Spidey. Teens and mature tweens will delight in 
 |Parker triumphing over a bully and falling for the lovely Gwen, while 
 |fans of the comic-book series will appreciate how much of a 
 |wise-cracking jokester the new Spider-Man is, in this fresh -- if not 
 |perfect -- interpretation of the beloved Marvel superhero.
 
-- 
Ciao, Alessio - 
http://www.sleepers.it
 
 
Materiale in italiano per Agent: 
http://agentit.altervista.org/
 

 
 
"Maurus"  ha scritto nel messaggio news:jth9s0$dbp$1...@tdi.cu.mi.it...

personaggi piatti
sceneggiatura banale e che sa di "gia visto"
parecchie scene sono prese pari pari dal primo film di Raimi
 
ma soprattutto non mi è piaciuto perche ha
confermato quello che dissi 2 anni fa quando uscirono le prime 
indiscrezioni:
non porta nulla di nuovo al personaggio e alla sua storia.
 
E' un remake del primo film di Raimi. 2 spanne inferiore
l'unica cosa diversa è il fatto che devi vederlo con gli occhiali da sole
e pagare 10 euro anziche 7 
 

non porta nulla di nuovo al personaggio e alla sua storia.
 
Hanno aggiunto gli spararagnatele e qualche battutina in pi� durante i
combattimenti.
 
Ci sono gli occhioni della Stone.
 
Manca JJJ, un grande della prima trilogia.
 
Vedendolo, ho anche avuto l'impressione che abbiano tagliato qualcosa.
