I could give you a half hour about this, but that's a thing that's happening to superheroes now. There's a misconception that in order to make them interesting, they have to be conflicted, emotional, almost anti-heroes; it's even being reflected in their darker costumes. Superman and Spider-Man are the most obvious offenders, but I can almost guarantee that's what we'll get with the new Fantastic Four as well, and I think it's a major reason why we haven't seen Wonder Woman have her own damn movie by now.

The big exception is Captain America, fortunately. It's no coincidence that of those mentioned, he's also the one whose movie adaptation is the most identifiable and relevant to our real-life world, and is therefore - in my humble opinion - the best character.

If I didn't have a paper on Zachary Taylor to write tonight, I would seriously be able to go on and on about this.

Critics are some of the worst people to rate niche movies. Personally I think some of them get paid for their ratings. Or maybe, Marvel trying to get the rights back.

ASM2, critic 54, audience 76
SM3, critic 63, audience 51
XM3, critic 57, audience 63
SR, critic 76, audience 62

B&R, critic 12, audience 17 seems everyone agreed. No where near what is going on above though.

So when an audience gives a 3/4 rating, it seems like it might be a fun movie to watch.

I am seeing it at 8, so I can confirm or deny personally then.

Just saying never trust movie critics on comic or horror movies, nor comedies.


Super troopers
critic 35, audience 90.

I've watched it twice, the second time only to make sure I wasn't wrong about it the first time.

It sucks balls IMO, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ah, but did it suck more balls than Spider-Man 3? Because that sucked some pretty serious balls.

Yep, straight arrow and very much un-conflicted Cap, rocks... but I will never be able to put him above Bales Batman.

Batman was an anti-hero to begin with, though, as was Wolverine, Hellboy, and (since about 1980) Daredevil. I'm talking about the non-anti-hero-heroes who do their thing for mainly altruistic reasons and whose ideals are typically reflected in their bright costuming. Another example is Oliver Queen on Arrow.

True.

It's better than that. Ironically though, it resembles that movie some. The overstuffed plot, underdeveloped villains.

Like I said- its not that I'm raving about it, but it's better than the previous mentioned movies.

I'm not offended if other's opinion differs.

You're partly right, because critics aren't above making salacious statements in the intended result being quoted in tv, radio, and print spots. Quick way to build a national name and move up the ladder to be the next nationally known critic. Pretty kush job to be the next S&E, Maltan, or Roeper.

Saw it earlier today. I thought it was "meh." It wasn't shitty, but at the same time it wasn't spectacular. The first one was better.

Who was the shadowy figure...



Post-movie teaser...

It was a free promo because the 2 studios originally had the same opening dates. Xmen pushed back in exchange for Sony showing the free promo for all the Spidey screenings.

Whatever the case, it was pretty unusual. Sony promoting for FOX? That's nearly unheard of.



It would be so sweet if Sony worked our a deal with Disney where Garfield could show up in a Marvel movie.

Arrow has been anti for more than a decade, he was anti hero in the jlu cartoon.

People going in expecting an action flick are probably going to be disappointed. This movie is more about Peter Parker than it is about Spider-Man.

I liked the story it told. I would've liked to have seen more action for a 2hr 20 minute film, but I liked what was there. Its just not that balls out, in your face, Michael Bay wet dream inspiring actionfest that a lot of people were hoping for.

Ill buy it when it comes out.