Sandman has had an odd arc in the comic books. He was just a thug, really, but he eventually went straight and even became an Avenger for a while. But I guess the powers-that-be missed the super villain Sandman, so they had the Wizard use a behavior modification device on him and now he's as evil as ever. He's a second tier Spidey villain (second tier is really high), but never one of my favorites. The sad sack we see in the movie is basically his middle period when he was on the verge of going straight.

Well, the key part of him catching the killer is the realization that it's the same thug that he let get away earlier. That realization is the important part. And he does have that realization in the film, so I don't think actually catching the guy really matters that much. As long has he knows he done fucked up and his Uncle Ben is dead because of it. That's the driving force he needs.

I suppose. He was still in high school for the first 28 or so issues of Amazing Spider-Man, though, and starts working for J. Jonah Jameson in issue #1.



Yes. Probably can't be the bridge scene, though, because they already did that with Mary Jane in the first movie.



I'm in the minority that thinks the first one is the best. Second one was great, too, though. It's such a shame the studio had to fuck with Raimi's vision in the third one. Forcing him to shoe-horn Venom in there, what were they thinking?

Yeah I wondered why Raimi was so gung ho to only do Sandman if he was a second tier villain. From what I hear, he started to lose enthusiasm for the franchise when he was forced to add Venom in it (probably a lot more built up things than that, but that seemed like the last straw).



I enjoyed this too (tho didn't make my top 10) and felt you would like it as well, and this year's Sound of My Voice was solid too. Something about that whole Brit Marling camp feels very alive and seems to stand out from the sea of independent movies that have come out recently. And for me, what they're doing feels like a branch off from mumblecore, except filling in the movement's weak spots by showing a better understanding of cinematic language (ie genre dipping). And I feel that comparison is apt because there's something that still feels very small and down to earth about their movies. I admire the intimacy and naturalness of mumblecore, but always felt like they never extended anything over than getting seemingly real performances, limiting themselves from other different experiences inherent in film that viewers could potentially feel.

Their spirit for independent moviemaking reminds me of the genesis of the Duplass bros, all that enthusiasm came out of nowhere like a huge breath of fresh air.

Hmm, fair enough.

Well, I'm still glad Maximum Carnage happened, because the video game based on it was pretty sweet.

The Amazing Spider-Man
8.1/10

Friend of mine said something about the mechanical web-shooters that I definitely agree with:
"The web-shooters decision is fine in theory, since it goes back to the source comic while also giving this movie a huge difference from Raimi’s trilogy. In practice, however, it makes no goddamn sense. We’re explicitly shown that the synthetic webbing is being produced by genetically engineered spiders, and it’s one of these spiders that bites Peter. Given this context, why the hell wouldn’t Peter be able to make the stuff himself? Furthermore, this means that Peter has to order his web cartridges directly from the manufacturer. It’s hard to believe that this stuff would be available for commercial purchase, and harder still to believe that one teenager could order whole crates of it without anyone raising a red flag. Moreover, the knowledge that this webbing could be so easily obtained by anyone in the world makes it a lot less special. If Peter could order whole crates of webbing and make a shooter out of scraps, what’s to stop some other industrious guy from doing the same? God forbid, someone else could figure it out, post a how-to video on YouTube, and we’ve suddenly got a whole nation of webslingers!"

Here's the whole review if anyone's interested: http://moviecuriosities.fmuk.org.uk/?p=3454

I remembering having a really weird argument with Troy Ponce over the science of The Wizard of Oz.

He basically said he couldn't enjoy the film because if water made witches melt there's no way they could survive due to the water vapor in the atmosphere, I told him how ridiculous I thought it was to be overly concerned with the scientific accuracy of a fantasy film, and he then proceeded to provide scientific explanations for everything else in the movie.

Did he mention anything about the natural selective impossibility of an entire guild of midgets with a lollipop obsession? I mean when you couple half-size appendages with what I'm assuming is pretty severe insulin resistance, there's no way those bastards are making it more than a few generations.

i had a love/hate relationship with that movie. a lot of the emotional moments were forced and unearned, and i feel resentful of movies which do that. whenever the two main characters weren't having unbelievable interactions i thought it was really good. it's definitely not as good as the other two movies.

also, i associated take shelter with melancholia as much as those other two for different reasons.

Naah, he wanted it to be Sandman and Harry Osborn, which could have worked.

Why is it so hard to swallow that water vapor in the atmosphere isn't enough exposure to cause harm, but a bucket of the stuff all at once is?