These two reviews both seemed to be written by extremely professional reviewers and I enjoyed reading both to see the aspects that they happened to pull out of the movie.
Gilchrist seems much more negative about the movie, which I believe is because of his expectations that he has towards it. He felt the sequal should have been more like the first which was nearly straight up action and blow up scenes, where the movie he saw had the explosiveness but not enough to please him. Gilchrist felt the scenes were too drawn out and long for him, especially the ones dealing with Aunt May. He also felt like it was too much dialogue for an action movie, but I feel like the dialogue was needed, I also feel that Gilchrist didnt give very good reasons for not liking the dialogue except for the fact that it made the movie too drawn out. It is obvious that Gilchrist didnt understand the nature of comic books, when he was quite upset over the fact that there was no real resolution to the movie and it ended abruptly, but that is how comic books work, they leave you hanging in the midst until the next episode or issue.
Ebert was extremely differant in his explanation of the movie. First of all he was praising the movie for being so awesome. He took all the points in Gilchrists and showed why they were more important to the movie being good. He showed the scenes that he pointed out and said that they were crucial for the character development of the story, and were used to help show how Spiderman was still a human being and not a super human. I believe that Ebert was a comic book reader because he seemed to know and understand how the director was so good in making it more like the comic book and leaving the no resolution ending. He also noted on several scenes and its great use of special effects and how it made the movie even better, whereas Gilchrist didnt seem to mention them too much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment