The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Part 2 - ralphthemoviemaker 

@Jos 😂🤣

Genuine passion when making art is priceless. The use of practical effects is one reason the Raimi movies hold up so well.

And what makes it better is that he did it not just for the sake of artistic integrity and being convincing, but also because Dafoe absolutely _loved_ playing that role. Some have argued his norman osborn is too hammy, and fair enough, but I'll always love perfomances where the actor was euphoric playing them. Compare to the poor kid playing harry in TASM2 and it's pathetic

this is why willem dafoe is my favourite actor of all time

"William Dafoe" is way more funny to me than it should be.

And even now, 19 years later, he insisted on doing the stunts himself yet again. Absolute god tier entertainer and performer.

It brought me to tears.

Like if you cry every tem.

"We have nothing. We have something, we have this banana. God bless us, everyone."

Benish Ben it's becomes not become

Nez 666 likes

It would've been a better joke in all honesty

Reminder that this DID happen in Deadpool 2, but it would have been cool here as well.

The only time they care about physics just to kill off a character.

Doug must've been real drunk that day.

When you try and examine individual elements in a vacuum and just ignore the actual plot as a whole, it changes A LOT about each film. Mainly because the original films were actually trying to be fucking movies while this is just a bunch of random bullshit and nonsense with some cheezy characters and occasional fun moments. Even then, that's mainly just the first Amazing Spiderman doing like all of the heavy lifting because this film doesn't do shit for the series, lol.

Doug Walker called Tamatoa from Moana a fucking Turtle

He has changed his opinion about these movies recently.

mattosmith400 Did he do it In a video?

roarshach13 stop nitpicking bruh. Lol.

roarshach13 They don't even know what it means. Why do stupid people use words they don't know and think it will help them win arguments.

roarshach13 But... That's A REVIEW! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO NITPICK!!! 😬😬😬 Sorry, but I gotta let it out of my system...

Nitpicking (noun): Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily. Ralph rarely nitpicks. He discusses genuine flaws.

Ur not real u have no profile pic so ur argument is invalid

LarryPokeTrainer Terminator: The Spidering T-800

He killed more people than John Wick

@@eyesack2007 ha. ha. very funny. haha. hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

@Miranda Sinn they copying from the best, shit ton of people is about to die, no fuck given. Louis Lane scrapped her knee. SUPERMAN: so... uneven floor, you have chose death.

Zing

That was just plane wrong

RusCus woooooooaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

That's 82%! Way too high a score.

RusCus Osama bin ladin is clapping from heaven

To be fair, you can't just pop some footage of an actor on a green screen into a computer and say "give me sweet CGI". The processes involves loads and loads of very skilled artists and technicians who put in an equal amount of effort into the end result as practical effects artists do. The only problem with CGI is that people tend to over-use it. When used correctly you won't even notice that it's there. Mad Max was praised for it's practical effects, but if you look at behind the scenes footage you'll see how CGI was used very intelligently to enhance every scene of the movie.

V elociraptor that’s just another reason I LOVE Spider-man 2. The cgi doesn’t feel like a crutch but a tool to enhance the scene and accomplish things that can’t be done using practical effects. I genuinely think Spider-man 2 looks better than some modern films due to the dedication to practical effects.

In the making of the hobbit, the actor who plays Gandalf teared up when he was placed in this green screen environment, all his experience as an actor to dress up in a green costume and dance around

@Anna333 It can be, but I guarantee that most CGI is invisible to you. You notice the full CGI characters, but you don't notice the millions of low-key CGI changes in the background of all your favourite movies.

I would think so.

A plane connected to a power grid on the ground sounds hilarius, i imagine a long-ass power cable going from a plane to an urban house plug

Ralph Sepe III?

Zrbrcr he problebly has his own name, like David or something, where his last name would be sepe, and that's not even confirmed

Edward Joel His name is Michael Sepe I think. And I think it's referred as the third, and I also think the name Ralph the Third can only be if it's say, Ralph's son, and not his brother, it would probably just be Ralph Sepe Junior or something. Sincerely, guy who doesn't understand jokes.

Nah his name is also Ralph Sepe, he obviously cloned himself but made the clone younger for some reason.

then why does he hate when ralph sepe make reviews?

While I refuse to spoil the ending in this review, it's the most heart wrenching and beautiful conclusion to any film I've ever seen. The Fault in our stuffing is a amazing allegory for struggles faceing our modern society. Not only oppression, guilt and self pity, but also how in our secular world, to be thankful for all that you have. it challenges conventions of Holiday movies and is a beautiful masterpiece. - A handsome and famous movie critic

white washing bullshit that I will never see

Awesome shortfilm 5 stars review

stuffing* 15:48

most films? Good directors always know what to shoot practically and where to use CGI.

yeah things look better if you combine the two. (Mad Max for example)

There's not a technological plateau. It's still getting better and it's gonna keep getting better. Problem is that the VFX industry is so overcompartmentalized that even the simplest wire removal has to go through like ten different mother fuckers when something like that could be done like you or me with free software in like two hours.

I 100% agree but it's even the case in movies with no CGI. Everything looks fake.

Sed1er .......brother?

Oh that's easy Wanna see the whole fight? Me: yes movie I do Uh hu ya well fuck you...

That’s because the arms were there at least in some scenes. They actually made those arms. Each arm had up to four operators who would meticulously rehearse with Molina to ensure the movements seemed natural. He even had a name for each arm. For some scenes that involved Molina interacting with the arms it took up to 16 puppeteers to control them all. Sam Raimi has a real love for practical effects and it shows in his work. It really helps his films to stand the test of time.

Captain Meat black humor is like child with cancer. never gets old

Why did Obama lose chess against Bin Laden He was missing two towers!

+THE Fool Oh my god I laughed wayy to much at that! I'm starting to feel like a bad person for doing so too.

Navon Myhand Good.

colebowlin68 Oh my god that's terrible.

What? I thought that acting was good

Salvador Reyes Wow. Congratulations on that, I guess. I hope you dont get fucked over by other people too much. Because that acting was absolute shit.

"I thought it was good, therefore everyone else is wrong"

Japeth321 What?

It sounds like Chris Ray Gun

NateDoggeh What in the name of all that is holy is your profile picture??? Idk if I like or hate it.

@@thatguyintherain3168 was it just Walter White when you saw it?

Which one? Was it Sing?

+SolidRU-vidr AF w h a t.

Clearly you don't know what a good movie is 😂

Wisdom Murray its a meme you dip

love the sarcasm

XY-855/F I downvoted this but then I got it, good job

Jackson Howard "Nine" *crowd gasps* "Eleven" *applause*

At AllState....sorry... I couldn't resist.

Just not in the hands of good writers.

Jimmy MACfluster assresist

Matt Mahoney Then Stan Lee raped a bunch of kids. I'm not joking actually. Look it up.

Whatever you say bub.

Nathanial Kirklin ye*

A headache My head hurts That connection is absolutely perfect

Exactly

Who's bonesaw?

Gadiel Gonzalez That universes' Crusher Hogan.

@Me, a black racist No he's not.

PicklesRTasty I walked out of this and The Woman in Black 2.

PicklesRTasty I walked out of Terrible Rom Com in the Hopes of Getting a Polite Handjob After #6 but my ex made me sit through Terrible Rom Com or else no Anal #3

I sat through Anal#3 with no polite handjob in order to get out of Terrible Rom Com.

Smart move my man Franklin Mac​

The only movie I ever walked out of the theater was xXx 3. It was insufferable and the agent with the glasses is more obnoxious than Jar Jar Binks...

Recognizing quality work vs not quality work is not nitpicking.

Oh my fucking

Tell that to EVERY GODDAMN COMEDIAN

Best joke in the history of mankind

Wut a shtory, Mark

I didd nut hit herr, I did noooooot.

Unlike Wiseau, he gets to lead big budget movies... for some reason.

Also what's funny about the whole 9/11 thing at the end is that the original Sam Rami Spiderman is that film's release was delayed because the twin towers were in that film originally and they removed them. Gotta love how the reboot uses that event to cheaply emotionally manipulate the audience. I agree its bullshit and it should never be done unless the film is about the subject matter itself.

Wait they what in Titanic

Meme Lord "if he had sense of humor" LMAO

HA! Not funny but HA!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was about Peter learning that being Spider-Man affects more lives than just his own. Spider-Man 3 is about Peter getting full of himself and abusing the people in his life, and how easy it is to forgive people who blow half your face off and kill your uncle.

+Chris Merritt TASM2 isn't about that at all. The only thing that remotely implies that is Gwen's death which doesn't happen until the end. Besides that's just a dumber version of Raimi's Spiderman 2. Spiderman 3 is about the black suit bringing out the worst in him and him harming the people he cares about. It wasn't great but it at least is about something.

Ti My TASM2 is about him taking responsibility for being an icon of hope. His iconic status affects both Harry and Max negatively, because he just skimmed through the motions of being heroic and only cared about himself and his image as Spider-Man. He describes himself as an icon of hope to Harry, who ends up placing hope in him only to be disappointed by Spider-Man's inability to deal with the situation as an immature teenager focused on his personal life problems. If Peter had thought about it, he could have given Harry his blood to reverse engineer to find a cure, but he was more focused on his own image and doing what he thought was right to actually make a mature and thought out decision. His answer drove Harry to desperation. In Spider-Man 2, he quits because life is too hard and he can't have what he wants. He literally says that's the reason he quits. In TAMS2 he quits because he realizes being Spider-Man gets the people he cares about killed or mutated. In Spider-Man 3 he was already a huge jerk before the suit got him, and that stuff never gets resolved. He forgives Sandman, and Harry forgives him for no other reason than he was about to die from the most unnecessary and convoluted circumstances conceivable. And MJ forgives him, like he was prince charming before the suit took him over and made him back hand her in public. TASM2 has more subtlety and depth than all three Raimi films combined.

Chris Merritt Taking responsibility for bring an icon of hope (cough cough Man of Steel). Also that isn't consistent with you first explanation nor is it consistent with the movie. His status as an icon was never in question or in jeopardy. There was one line of dialogue when he said Spiderman gives people hope but he literally threw it all away and quit being Spiderman twice. First he abandoned his responsibility as Spiderman so that he could move to Paris with the girlfriend. Second was after Gwen died and he just didn't like being Spiderman anymore. But despite his sudden disappearance, citizens welcome him with open arms as if it didn't even matter. Harry and Electro seem to be the only ones that depend on Spiderman but their dependence of him comes out of nowhere since they seemed to be angry about other stuff that has nothing to do with Spiderman. They also seem to be complete utter psychopaths on their own. In Spiderman 3, Peter was taken Mary Jane for granted because this was the first dose of happiness he has ever experienced. People finally recognize his work as Spiderman and he was doing better in school. But unlike the ASM films at least the screenwriters have a moral conscience and recognize when Peter is being a jerk by having him suffer the consequences. The black suit and how it effects him is the main source of conflict throughout the whole film and is therefore what the film is about. It is thematically consistent with the first two guns because it's about him balancing between duel identities and the burden that comes with it. In this way the writers are still being responsible. The ASM has him make selfish decisions and suffer no consequence for them as if the writers have no understanding when he does wrong. His ability to abandon his responsibilities without any guilt and nothing to tell him that he did wrong. Even Gwens death seems to be nothing more than just making him sad that he doesn't have a girlfriend anymore because her "move on" speech (which was by far the dumbest thing I have ever seen) wouldn't appease his guilt for causing her death unless it never actually bothered him. How can there be depth when there is no moral conviction?

Ti My What you're saying pretty much backs my point. Everything for the Raimi films is spelled out for the audience. That's fine, it works for 1 and 2, and everything is cut and dry, plain as day. Everything in TASM2 is there, but it's between the lines writing, which is a style of movie making I've noticed is really easy to take out of context critically and is popular to hate, since it's the easiest to construe into an ignorant errant viewpoint, which appeals to critics who have to tear something apart to stay relevant. If they can twist something into a "terrible movie" for views and no one can prove otherwise, they'll do it for the views. But these are movies that are re-watchable for people who don't mind thinking about things and figuring stuff out in the movies they watch, rather than just being told and taking everything at surface value. TASM2 doesn't try to put his status as an icon in jeopardy, he just takes it for granted in everything he does. Did you see the kill count for the opening scene? It's implied with every scene Spider-Man is in, but nobody ever comes out and says it. It's a real life principle being played out in a fictional situation. In the Times Square scene, it ends with Spider-Man - not contemplating the strange man who was looking for his help and was obviously overwhelmed by the circumstances - but going over to Gwen to resume talking about their relationship. That's the scene that makes it apparent that he's not concerned with his role as Spider-Man as much as he is with his personal problems. Harry isn't crazy. He does research trying to save himself from his disease and finds out about Richard Parker's research with the spiders to heal disease. Peter finds out that the reason his dad's research never panned out for Oscorp was because it was specific to his dna and that's why it worked with Peter. Instead of telling that to Harry, he acts out of his own self interest. Max was legitimately mentally unstable, but Spider-Man fed the mentally unstable person that line trying to boost his morale and it ends up turning him against him when he gets powers of his own. It illustrates how Peter's irresponsibility behind the mask is more harmful than helpful if he doesn't take responsibility for it. You say he suffers no consequences? Really? Gwen is dead! Because he told her he'd go to England with her instead of letting her go, she put herself in danger and came with him to fight Electro. Her speech is about "becoming hope". So, that speech is the dumbest thing you've ever seen... and you're defending Spider-Man 3? The one with the dance scene, collar popping Peter, and Topher Grace as Venom? How does a movie having depth have anything to do with the writers having moral conviction? Freaking not one of Quentin Tarantino's movies has a grain of moral conviction, but they're chalk full of depth. The characters all have personal motivations that influence all their actions, and their actions aren't always immediately understood until you notice a new piece of information about what motivates their character... THAT is depth. Not a single character from Spider-Man 3 has any depth whatsoever that wasn't established in another movie, and the only character who's depth carries over is quickly sucked out of the narrative via lazy writing. Spider-Man 3 had good ideas, but they were all written and directed as one dimensional as it gets. I get that the idea that Peter Parker takes MJ for granted because he's been overwhelmed by life being so awesome for him and he's not used to it, but the whole experience is framed like a comedic spoof. The movie fails BECAUSE it focuses on the effects of the suit on Peter and neglects the present issues with the characters. It uses the suit to bypass actually dealing with any of the character issues and still come to a conclusion. Proof of this is when he gets rid of the suit - Harry overlooks the feelings he had towards Peter before he got the black suit and rallies beside him in the final fight, and MJ just forgives him. In real life, Harry would have joined forces with Venom and Sandman, and MJ would have spat in his face. Peter was a huge big headed egoist from the start of the movie and then when the first sign of something going wrong for him shows up, he turns into a huge douche, throws a grenade at his Harry's face for stealing MJ, and back hands MJ. That makes him a toxic person to anyone who didn't know the black suit was causing his amplified behavior, which is everyone besides Doctor Connors. Real moral clarity there, it's okay to be a huge jerk and take advantage of everybody dear to you because the moment you face real hardship, those people will take pity on you and forgive you for everything you've done.

Wouldn't want to steal a quote from Harry Osborn. XD

thank you! completely agree

Ok what do you like then spiderman 2 the slowest movie of all time with 5 minutes of action go get a life your like 20

+eyefishingMD butthurt much?

Why is this movie so bad? I sat through forty minutes of part one and two of this trash talking bs and this Ralph genius only reaffirmed my theory that most people who hate this movie are just too dumb to understand it. I seriously wanna know.

Chris Merritt Too dumb to understand? Pick any scene of this movie, like the last scene for example. Not only is it cliche as fuck, but there is a psychopath shooting more bullets than rambo and people are gathering around like they're watching a concert, and then this kids walks up to him. Yeahhh

Man of Steel is better than this crap. At least Zack Snyder knows his material, great effects and actions, and wonderful performances.

Man of Steel is a good action movie, but I don't like it as a story of Superman. I did a 10 page paper about why Man of Steel is not as much a Superman movie as it is a Hollywood blockbuster of the early 2010's.

Even that which movie you rather watch. Mos (a mess but have effort, heart, and good action) or As reboot(a mess with no effort, lack of passion, and poor action.)

Happy very belated birthday!

nigga its been five fucking years

@@pedropony8060 you dont have to be a jerk abt it LOL

The scene would've been better if they played the Seinfeld theme during it.

They did Gwen's death really terrible

I cried are you emotionless?

@@hawon7018 that scene was emotionless. They made her fall look like she was a flap cake

it's pie noon maybe to you but not to me

Already did one. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-izfCswgEnxs.html

+Spidey-Webhead 101 get out

TODD!?

That movie scares the living shit out of me

AUGS FOR PRESIDENT It's you.. the listener of the week on WCBS 50% of the time. The chosen one..

I have 9/11 I have suicide UGH... Jumpers

@lucy y holy resurrected comments, batman!

Jake Hollis Yeah, but at least it was handled much better than what Sony was doing with Spider-Man in this movie. I mean, we should be thankful that Warner Bros. did a better job of rebooting a Godzilla movie than what Roland Emmerich did to the character in the 1998 version. At least with the 2014 version, they actually got Godzilla's body design right and they actually used a stuntman to do Godzilla's movements in the movie, even if he had to wear a CGI-suit throughout the making of the movie. It still felt like Godzilla in the 2014 version actually was fighting like a real dinosaur. That's about it.

Tyler Shewchuk That, I can agree on. Even it is was like 10 minutes of screen-time, at least the 2014 version did give us what we'd asked for and that was a better representation of the King of all monsters. So, in a way, we should be thankful that Roland Emmerich isn't directing another Godzilla movie.