| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 04/23/2007 : 23:17:03
I'm so excited. I must have watched the latest trailer about five times and I get goosebumps every time. I used to read the comics when I was growing up, and even got into the new version, Ultimate Spiderman, which came out several years ago.
When the first film was announced I was actually quite disappointed that Toby McGuire was cast - I didn't think he was cool enough to pull it off and even though Peter Parker was supposed to be a geek, Toby was a geek too far. But I was wrong. He was perfect, and the first two films, IMO, were the greatest superhero films ever produced. And the latest one looks like it could be even better than the last two.
In a moment of weakness I even watched a five minute excerpt that was posted on YouTube, which features a quite magnificent chase scene. I felt like a five-year-old spying on something he shouldn't but had to keep watching.
SLIGHT SPOILER: Anyone who's followed the development of this latest film will know that Spidey's up against three, YES THREE, baddies, and he's got the ongoing romance with MJ to contend with. Don't know how long the film is but I'm hoping it's slightly extended to fit this all in. Frankly I wouldn't care if it goes on for five hours but I may have to wait for the Director's Dream Cut for that to happen. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 09:36:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
Very interesting article.
Thanks for that, Ali. I think we can see between the lines here the shall we say less than enthusiastic backing of the film by Raimi on his subsequent BBC radio interview. He virtually admitted he wouldn't be seeking to direct #4 and gave more than strong hints that he had a pretty rotten time on the film. Contractually, of course, he's obliged to do a certain percentage of pre-opening publicity, and he's further constrained about how far he can go so as not to damage box office potential. Not that there was ever a chance this was going to lose money. I think what Ali's cited article says louder than anything is that in today's cine-world, producers have far more say than directors. And, yes, there was a time when producers were concerned with everything except artistic decisions, and directors carried the can for everything creative from script to post-synch.
|
| Ali |
Posted - 05/30/2007 : 08:47:29
Very interesting article.
|
| Ali |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 14:41:06
In Spider-Man 2, Peter is free of the the Sword of Domocles dangling over his head that is being Spider-Man, and the "Raindrops" scene is a lighthearted way to accentuate his mood.
In Spider-Man 3, the black suit turns Peter nasty and "twisted," and the club scene is a terrible way to accentuate that particular mood. The Saturday Night Feveresque stroll earlier in the film mirrors the Raindrops scene from the previous sequel - so why go the extra mile and turn what is essentially a dark moment into pure slapstick? It's miscalculated and discordant.
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 14:25:00
Tonally inconsistent and inappropriate I can buy. I don't agree but I think it's at least a valid criticism. I don't see how this applies to the club scene but not to the "Raindrops" scene from Spider-Man 2 though. |
| Sean |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 12:39:12
As a non-liker of S3 I didn't actually mind the cafe scene, it didn't bother me. The implausibility of other characters was what annoyed me (I won't repeat it as I mentioned it earlier).
Different things bother people in different ways I suppose... or not at all. 
BTW, I just watched POTC:DMC, and was bored. Perhaps I'm becoming harder to please, and action without plot just ain't enough any more. I'd guess it may have something to do with the fact that for the last 6 months or so I've been working my way through the IMDb Top 250 movies... watching the whole lot (done 210 so far), so am being spoiled by the best movies ever.  S3 and POTC2 just looks like chaff by comparison.  |
| Ali |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 11:42:24
quote:
I don't know why people keep saying this. Raimi's always been a goofy guy, and that scene, and the sidewalk-strutting scene before it, are pretty clearly intentionally hilarious.
Yes, but he's done cheesy and goofy before and it worked wonders. The scene in the second film where Peter is strolls through Manhattan to "Raindrops Are Falling On My Head" was great. The jazz club scene was not.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 11:29:09
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
The cafe scene: Unintentionally hilarious
.
I don't know why people keep saying this. Raimi's always been a goofy guy, and that scene, and the sidewalk-strutting scene before it, are pretty clearly intentionally hilarious. I love those scenes.
For my money, intentionally hilarious is fine but it has to be appropriate to the film. That scene just did not fit to the extent
that it pulled me out of the film- suspension of disbelief can only stretch so far.
quote:
quote:
the actors very rarely have their masks on, for example
Ali meant that as a criticism of how the studio's influence went so far as to extend even to the makeup. That's not true at all, not in the slightest. There's an inherent drawback to making any live-action Spider-Man movie, and it's this: You can't act behind a mask. This is why the characters all have their masks off a lot of the time. Quite honestly, I thought it was handled much more gracefully than in the second movie, where he's just tearing off his mask all the time in full view of everyone.
There's this medium you may have heard of called radio...  Seriously, actors of this calibre should be able to emote through a mask. (Not that I personally had a problem with mask removal- I guess on some level it made the character a bit more relate-to-able) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 05:44:02
quote:
The cafe scene: Unintentionally hilarious
.
I don't know why people keep saying this. Raimi's always been a goofy guy, and that scene, and the sidewalk-strutting scene before it, are pretty clearly intentionally hilarious. I love those scenes.
The bomb thing? Not quite unexplainable. Perhaps Harry heals faster because of his magical Goblin serum, whereas Eddie, being just a normal human being separate from his symbiote, does not. Perhaps Venom, after being sufficiently weakened by the earlier attacks, is dramatically weaker and more susceptible to exploding Goblin bombs.
And while I'm defending this film, let me get to this criticism way back on Page 2, which I missed the first time:
quote:
the actors very rarely have their masks on, for example
Ali meant that as a criticism of how the studio's influence went so far as to extend even to the makeup. That's not true at all, not in the slightest. There's an inherent drawback to making any live-action Spider-Man movie, and it's this: You can't act behind a mask. This is why the characters all have their masks off a lot of the time. Quite honestly, I thought it was handled much more gracefully than in the second movie, where he's just tearing off his mask all the time in full view of everyone. |
| demonic |
Posted - 05/23/2007 : 04:57:28
I finally cuaght up on this one today after putting it off and seeing other things higher up the "need to see" list first. It was also cheap ticket day at my local fleapit and it seemed as good as reason as any.
Obviously I went with low expectations, and found to my delight that the first half of the movie at least was perfectly good; the characters were all well settled and interacting as I remembered, it felt well paced and the slightly cheesy dimples-in-the-cheeks, "aw shucks" comic book attitude was quite charming. Tobey Maguire always looks like he's smoked a few too many and barely manages to act beyond the goofy look he presumably carries in real life, but it washed very pleasantly over me.
And then it went wrong half way through. Really not good at all wrong. My patience was being stretched so many times by lazy dialogue or appalling acting, or enormous plot holes I stopped enjoying it, which was a crying shame as it had won me over pretty well. You know something is seriously wrong with an action sequence when you have to have pre-teens saying banalities like "wicked cool!" into camera to somehow convince you that what you are watching is either exciting or at best interesting. It reminded me that this movie was squarely aimed at the 8 to 13 market and was pretty much pandering to them. I'm not a kid anymore, but i'd like to think that Raimi could at least think about the wider audience. Think about the ridiculous "no, it's far too late to save me" heroic death speech at the end: it's pure playground. In fact the best joke of the whole movie was the little kid pulling a face at Spiderman kissing Gwen.
I'd like to point out the kid was delusional. Bryce Dallas Howard is seriously easy on the eye and a really nice actress, and kept me alert when my attention was flagging, bless her, but she wasn't around for the last half hour, so that was that. Rosemary Harris is a good actress too, but why is it every time she has one of her many lengthy "let's have a chat, Peter" scenes in all three films my brain shuts down? Sam Raimi really can't do drama, he needs to stop trying - or if he won't, at least get someone to write it who isn't a comic book adapter. It's soooo boring.
Evil Peter as Brian Molko from Placebo: just rubbish. The cafe scene: unintentionally hilarious. This we all know. A glaring plot hole (because it just occurred to me) - Harry gets a bomb in his face and gets some unfortunate but very fast healing scar tissue, Eddie Brock gets a bomb in the face and is completely incinerated. What's that all about?
Finally, can we quit with the Stan Lee cameos? I'm so sick of seeing him in Marvel adaptations he's like a bad smell. It's getting to the point where he might as well introduce them all like Hitchcock - "I first ripped-off this character from DC in 1960...."
A pretty horrible way to end a decent run of films; the worst of the three by far. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 18:24:29
Finally got to see SM3 last night. Daughter is away on a school trip for the week, and we're allowed out to play! 
On the whole, it was a decent superhero movie, BUT
1) I'm with Ali - some of the "through the buildings" fights and chases left me feeling disoriented.
2) SM3 started off well, totally lost it's way in the middle, redeemed itself, and then fell for the really cheesy ending. I could have done without the voice-over about "choices that we all have to make". Could have done without Spidey framed against the Stars and Stripes, come to think of it.
3) Jazz Club scene - yech! Why?
4) Goblin Junior's redemption - hmmm.
5) Not bad, but can we make the next one a bit more concise please?
Having said that, we've got tickets to see POTC At Worlds End on Thursday night. I'll report back on Friday morning (day off work )
P.S. My ticket stub says "Spider-ma". Could this be the next spin-off from the franchise? |
| damalc |
Posted - 05/17/2007 : 19:49:47
i watched SM2 again for comparison purposes and it's not even close. the second installment was brilliant and has set the bar ridiculously high for super-hero movies.
a couple of points though. i can forgive the whole dark-Parker strut sequence, somewhat. it's parker trying to be cool, hip and edgy. and he's not. he's a goofy kid with no idea how to be any of those things. that was pretty much a bizarro version of the sunshiny, happy, no-powers-Parker "raindrops-keep-falling" segment from part 2. that was a little corny too, but it served its purpose and didn't ruin the film. the butler revelation and dance sequence in part 3 are still hideous though.
things that worked in part 2 that the studio should have remembered: 1) MORE J. Jonah Jameson, probably the best character in the series. 2) fewer villains are better, not more. because there was just octavius in part 2, there was more development with that character and therefore more interest. 3) people are more interesting than special effects and action. most of the sfx in all 3 movies are gorgeous. one reason super-hero movies are more popular now is movie magic is getting closer to imaginations. but that doesn't nearly replace good characters, interesting relationships and believable interaction. i don't remember anybody complaining because spiderman didn't appear in costume for more than 30 minutes in part 2?
my favorite part of sm2 is so simple: near the end when spidey, not wearing his mask, is holding up a piece of a building and mj is staring up at him, shocked at the revelation, and he says, "This is really heavy."
don't get me wrong. i liked sm3, but it was far below expectations. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 06:45:31
Over here, we only get The Daily Show Global Edition once a week. Just before Spiderman 3 came out, Jon Stewart interviewed Tobey Maguire on his show and that's the interview we got on the Global Edition. He asked if this third installment wasn't a bit of a problem since third movies have a tendency to flop (I think he referred to Godfather 3). There was an awkward moment there, and I got the feeling that Tobey wasn't as confident as he should have been. After reading this thread, I can see why!
|
| damalc |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 18:53:07
quote:
Originally posted by TitanPa
For all you Spider-Man fans out there. That includes Tori's husband. Here is hoping Black Cat makes her movie Debut and Upstages CatWoman.
Who would make a good Black Cat??
Bridgette Wilson
how 'bout Jaime Pressly |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 11:30:21
quote:
Presumably, (s)he then eats h(er/is) partner after boinking too?
And yes- you sound as qualified as anyone in Hollywood to write a comic book movie
I knew I was missing something!! |
| benj clews |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 11:24:16
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
Peter has a sex change (Perty Parker) and spins webs from her new breast implants and a fashions a little red and blue skirt from his trousers.
Presumably, (s)he then eats h(er/is) partner after boinking too?
And yes- you sound as qualified as anyone in Hollywood to write a comic book movie |
|
|
