About as different a pair of movies as you could imagine. I enjoyed both.
To Rome is Woody Allen Lite. It won't be one of his most beloved, but it's not one of his worst either: it has its pleasures, which include terrific actors and scenery. Plus I think the singing in the shower gag is funny.
Damned with faint praise, I know, I know. But here's my stand on late career Woody Allen: his work is erratic nowadays, but his worst films are watchable and his sweet-spot films are... uniquely wonderful. For the viewer it's a box-of-chocolates problem: sometimes you bite into delicious hazelnut creme, sometimes that hard stuff that sticks to your teeth, but give up chocolates? Never!
Likewise, one Vicky Cristina Barcelona or Matchpoint is worth a few Scoops. Even the awful dregs of Melinda and Melinda (which I took as a personal betrayal) is redeemed by Midnight in Paris. If Mr. Allen was my buddy Woody, I'd suggest he slow down, that maybe he needs more time to recharge between films. Sadly, we're not speaking. (I'm free for lunch any day, Mr. Allen!) Then again, I'm not sure this dedicated filmmaker would know what to do if he wasn't making a film. So... his fans watch some not as good films, waiting for the next really really good one.
Time - that great editor - will sort 'em out for posterity.
What posterity will think of The Amazing Spiderman I don't know. I remember the Toby Maguire versions well enough not to need a reboot yet, but I did like this new take on Peter Parker and Spidey by actor Andrew Garfield. Great romance this time and a very good villain. I am sure though that our day will be considered a Golden Age of Super Hero Movies.
(As I write this post, outside my studio window, bright in a shaft of sunlight in the garden, there's the Biggest Spider Web Ever. I'm feeling kinda nervous about spider bites right now. Maybe I'll leave it, huh?)
Spider web - from Publicdomainimage.com