| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 05/04/2007 : 20:32:09
|
Before I comment on the third of this Marvel franchise, I have to quote what I suspect wasn't intended as a comic line from a trailer for The Fantastic Four: "Touching the Surfer has altered your molecular structure." I wish there was even one line in the Raimi Brother's latest spin of Spidey's web that could match that.
Columbia and Sony won't care, though, 'cause this blockbuster is sure to bust many blocks and rake in the banana-oil. And if that sounds a bit old-fashioned, so's the flick. Sure, it's full of sfx - though none nearly so good as Part 2. And - despite some old time show tunes and jazz - there's a take on Danny Elfman's original scoring. Very sub-Elfman, may I add.
But the real retro elements invade plot, dialogue, and, I'm afraid even performances. Mind you, even better actors than Tobey and Kirsten would have trouble with the spoonfuls of mush they have to spit out. Look, if you're a big Spidey fan you're prob'ly gonna love this. After all, it does deal out a few interesting premises. For me, though, none was delivered or explored with any but the most simplistic encounters.
Okay, I know this is a comic book and not Dostoyevsky but even so. And then I started asking myself what did I really expect? Why did it bother me so much that the potential of some of the ideas, some of the morality was drawn so crudely? And why, above all, did I feel so let down by what might have had the visceral impact of those comic books I used to read avidly before my mom would make me throw them out.
The word that kept coming up was pretentious. I'm not going into all the nooks and crannies of a plot that's a collection of remnants sewn together without actually making whole cloth. Rest assured, it's all over the place. Strands are dangled as often as Spidey's silk. But unlike our boy who uses those strands to propel himself forward, the story strands are abandoned almost as soon as they're presented to us. Some are picked up at arbitrary intervals, others just kind of blow away in the breeze. The focus is lost, and the characters don't matter, but they're given to us as though they should. And that's what's finally pretentious.
Most of all I'm disappointed by Sam Raimi, who's previously used a cinema screen as a quirky and potent canvas of images. There are a couple of iconic shots in Spider-Man 3 [my favorite, I suppose, being that of a troubled Spidey fitting in nicely with the gargoyles on a cathedral spire] - but for the most part it's a piece of direction without a signature.
|
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/04/2007 : 23:33:48
|
I haven't read any reviews on it (they're far too long, there's a reason I hang around the "Four Word Film Review" website), but so far it's a 7.9 at IMDb, with 60% giving it 10/10. 4500 voters so far with a much higher satisfaction level among younger viewers (any surprises?).
So, the eager viewers who've seen it already seem to be satisfied. I'll keep my eye on the score, I suspect it'll drop from here as per usual, but I can't see it dropping down to a "this movie ain't no good" level, so I'll be seeing it. 
One question though:- Does Kirsten get her T-shirt wet again?  |
|
|
|
silly 
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 03:39:11
|
Our audience ate it up, but there was a bunch of laughter at moments that I don't think were supposed to be funny.
And as the credits rolled, a couple of loud "it's finally over!" comments.
I liked it, the same way I like roller coasters and popcorn movies. But I'll confess I never read Spider Man comics, so take whatever I say with a grain of sand. |
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
|
Posted - 05/05/2007 : 18:16:08
|
*Spoilers*
I just saw this film and I couldn't believe it. It was terrible.
The movie starts and there are absolutely no problems. Kind of boring.
The dialogue was pathetic. Every joke in this film fell flat in the theatre I saw it. The only scene that was actually funny was the one with Bruce Campbell.
The villans were altered far too much from their comic book selves. For instance, Venom is a small wussy in this film. Venom also doesn't speak in the royal 'we'. And since when can Sandman fly?
The emo imagery in this film is overwhelming and not needed. Emo does not equal cool. It turns spidey into a wimp since he cries about 5 times. In one scene, peter Parker is walking down the street greeting ladies and they're rejecting him. It was strangely similar to the scene in A Night at the Roxbury with Will Ferrel walking and greeting chicks in the club.
The dance scene at the jazz diner is completely unnecessary and unintentionally funny (not unlike many other scenes in this film). Also, since when does he play jazz piano? It takes years to learn that. And who is it playing the piano when he is dancing on top of it?
What does it take to kill spider-man? I feel no danger since apparently he's indestructable. In one scene he falls off a building and can't get his web to stick to anything in time before hitting the ground. In another part a Godzilla sized sandman is pounding him repeatedly.
The butler waited until Harry was permanantly disfgured to tell him that his dad killed himself. The entire spidey-green goblin 2 conflict could have been avoided if it wasn't for his incompetance.
The mary Jane break-up scene was weak, and terribly acted. Probably the most unintentionally funny scene in the movie. Why didn't she just say "The green Goblin 2 made me do this. He's sitting under that tree there and he doesn't have any of his gear with him. I know you can take him. Go get him tiger." ?
|
|
|
|
TitanPa 
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 06:26:06
|
I saw the movie Friday night. It was stil matinee prices. Not a big crowd. Not even half way full. It didnt live up to my expectations and I am a big comic book fan. I should have known I was in trouble when I saw the 3 trailers and I cant even remember one of them. Pirates of the Carribean 3, wow yeah.....trying to hype the third installment. Maybe I'll skip that movie. There also was Surfs Up. Looks like a cross between Happy Feet and Madagasgar. I cant even remember the third. How bad is that?
Anyways, back to the movie. It opens up as usual show us what happened in the previous 2 movies. Spider-Man 1 gets more time than Spider-man 2. I thought the movie was kinda Hokey. IT was by way of Superman 3, but not as bad. Keeping up with 4 super beings is tiring. The story jumps from one to the other. I thought they would all be treated seperatly, But in the end they all gang up on each other. The fight scenes are too fast and too blurry. Can't even enjoy the fights. Noone gets wet, not even Gwen or Mary. Gwen is a nice addition to the story, but doesnt get enough screen time. The movie tried to keep true to the comics. Sure Sandman can fly He is sand and all he needs is a big gust of wind. The HobGoblin turns good? Really??? Why??????? By the way...in the comics the first one was the GReen Goblin and the second was Hobgoblin. The story between Spidser-man and HobGoblin was weak. They turn Hob good and then kill him. Is that it???? We waited for the third installment to get this? Venom isnt even acknowledged as Venom and he gets killed off too? Parker forgives Sand-man and lets him go. THats it. No climatic ending. No wedding. No clues to Spider-Man 4. Im afraid they getting greedy with Super beings...they just might introduce us to the Sinister 8 in Spider-man 4. THe movie ended and then blacked out. No tying up loose strings and no info on whats to come. Never lived up to my expectations. I liked the movie and Topher was dead on terrific. But the movie altogther was disappointing. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 13:04:20
|
50% vaccuous soppy drama.
50% superhero action flick.
Add plenty of crying and not a lot of fun, and add some totally unfeasible personality transformations (sudden changes from bad to good) and you have a barely passable flick. The plot and script were the main problems, the rest was OK. 
Edit: I downgraded it from 6 to 5/10 after thinking more about the plot holes and wafer-thin character depth. |
Edited by - Sean on 05/06/2007 23:51:15 |
|
|
|
damalc
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 18:11:39
|
sm3 wasn't horrible, but was easily the weakest of the series, and galactically disappointing after the brilliant sm2.
no superhero movie should have a dance sequence.
the scene with harry osborn and the butler was some of the worst storytelling i've ever seen.
i think it's very telling that females under 18 give it the highest rating on imdb. since when is that the target audience for superhero movies? |
Edited by - damalc on 05/06/2007 18:14:41 |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 05/06/2007 : 23:31:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by damalc
no superhero movie should have a dance sequence.
I need that on a t-shirt. Thank you. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 05:29:14
|
I'm really kind of crushed this film is getting the reviews it is. I can't say I don't get it, I realize the dialogue isn't exactly Tarantino and so on. I realize these flaws and I accept them, just like we accept the flaws in all our favorite movies. I'll let a lot of criticisms without disputing them.
But there's things I will not stand for. Like these.
quote:
The movie starts and there are absolutely no problems. Kind of boring.
Yeah... that's the point. Spider-Man has grown lazy and complacent with his success. It's essential for the entire story arc.
quote:
The villans were altered far too much from their comic book selves. For instance, Venom is a small wussy in this film. Venom also doesn't speak in the royal 'we'. And since when can Sandman fly?
Now here's the kind of thing I can't stand. I hear from all sorts of sources -- Tolkein fans, Stephen King fans, blahdy blah -- I hate it, I hate it, and forty lashes to the next person who even dares think something like it. The alterations made to the villains are SUBSTANTIAL improvements. Venom, for example, is Topher Grace and not Dolph Lundgren to emphasize the idea that Venom is Spider-Man's evil twin, to the point of casting someone who could get mistaken for Tobey Maguire on the street.
quote:
The emo imagery in this film is overwhelming and not needed. Emo does not equal cool. It turns spidey into a wimp since he cries about 5 times.
All my friends were harping on this too, and it pisses me off, because THAT'S NOT WHAT EMO MEANS. "Emo" doesn't equal "bangs." The bangs actually make Spider-Man considerably LESS emo, he becomes a complete dick. He cries more without the supposedly "emo" bangs.
quote:
The dance scene at the jazz diner is completely unnecessary and unintentionally funny (not unlike many other scenes in this film).
Have you ever seen a Sam Raimi movie? Of course it's supposed to be funny, as were a whole lot of other scenes. He's a goofy character.
quote:
The mary Jane break-up scene was weak, and terribly acted. Probably the most unintentionally funny scene in the movie. Why didn't she just say "The green Goblin 2 made me do this. He's sitting under that tree there and he doesn't have any of his gear with him. I know you can take him. Go get him tiger." ?
I'll disagree that it was terribly acted, but yeah, I'll cop to this one. It's my least favorite part of the movie, it really pissed me off.
I still hold that this movie is the best in the franchise. The whole Spider-Man mythos is so clean -- he fights crime out of guilt, he's practically a saint in his vigilantism. This film goes deeper into the psyche, brings back his need for revenge, not to mention his arrogance: He knows he's better than a normal human being, he goes out every day and beats on criminals. This plausibly puts the dark side back into the character, or not even "back," it was always there. I'm really kind of surprised people prefer the first one to this, the first really is some thin soup, like the first couple Harry Potter books.
|
|
|
|
Tori
"I don't get it...."
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 06:15:57
|
| My husband is a big Spidey nerd ( a running joke is that if he dies, his first choice for replacement would be Tobey Maguire). We considered naming our son Peter after Spider-man. That having been said so that you know our devotion, this was his favorite of the three (we saw it tonight) and it was my favorite too. I was really bummed that they killed Harry (I bawled my eyes out) and I thought the movie was pretty funny. I felt heartbroken for Sandman until I found out what he'd done initially. Even then I considered him a sympathetic character. I only wish that I had know how scary Venom would be because our son was scared to death. |
|
|
|
TitanPa
"Here four more"
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 07:25:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tori
I only wish that I had know how scary Venom would be because our son was scared to death.
Your hubby is a big spidey nerd??? ANd you didnt know how scary Venom was going to be????? Does he read the comics? You dont think they are going to make Venom come off as cute character?????
anyways....What still gets me is that this was billed as Spider-man back in Black. He didnt even wear the suit that long! Didnt do much in that suit....except dance. I get that this is a movie and they have a few hours to tell a story. In the comic it took Months for the black suit to change Parkers Additude. Fogive me but, Best of the 3???????? I dont think so. It even tried to follow the trilogy format we learned in 'Scream'. But the mystery was someone else killed Ben. Yawn. I didnt even feel for sandman. I felt noghting. He was like a big ol Rock. No emotion, no guilt. He had no range. I am sorry. But this is not the best of the 3. I don't know how I will feel about a forth. |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 08:22:51
|
I didn't like Spider-Man III. Way too many story lines, English Lit 101-type metaphors, and pedestrian metatextual commentary on the franchise and the fans. Possibly the worst aspect of the film (apart from Kirsten Dunst, and the incongruous comedy-dance routine at the Jazz Club) was the obvious fact that the studio was more authoritative in the making of this one than they were in the last two. That's not a problem as long as a film works, but this one doesn't. One could feel the studio's ubiquitous presence at every turn, influencing characters (Raimi never wanted to use Venom, and said so repeatedly), entire plots and even make-up (the actors very rarely have their masks on, for example).
It doesn't even compare with the brilliance of the second flick.
|
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 12:50:00
|
I'm joining the MisterBadIdea camp - I liked it a lot!
Sean - you mean you actually went to the cinema!? |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 13:18:04
|
My main gripes with S3 were characterisation:-
a) Harry Osborn. By the end I couldn't care less what happened to him, the writers had effectively killed him off before the movie even started when they decided to make him bad, then good, then bad again, then good again within two hours. It was totally implausible and made it impossible for me to connect with him. In fact it's been a long time since I've come across such an implausible character in a movie. So when he died it was like squashing a mosquito.
b) Sandman. Similar to Osborn. He was initally sympathetic, then became totally evil and would have killed a lot of people on his rampage through the city, then following the rampage he... REPENTED! Get real! That just doesn't happen. Would anyone have believed Seung-Hui Cho if he'd repented after his massacre at Virginia Tech? Not me.
So when characters go from bad to good and good to bad and back again at the drop of a hat to suit the plot... it kills the story as the characters become meaningless and impossible for me to connect with. I'll continue...
c) Mary Jane. She was a self-pitying cry-baby for most of the movie. While super-villains were running riot and bringing the city to it's knees... she was feeling sorry for herself because she'd lost her job, and because of her delusional perceptions of relationship problems that didn't exist. I had no respect for her character at all and couldn't care less about her by the end of the movie. The scriptwriters killed her off by turning her into nothingness. I was even hoping Spidey would give her the boot, she wasn't good enough for a superhero. In fact Spidey's neighbour Ursula had much greater depth and was infinitely more likeable than MJW; I would have been quite happy if Spidey had hooked up with her. That's a serious scriptwriting flaw if the 'other girl' is a much more likeable character than the main girl.
d) Spidey. No problems here. He remained true to character for the whole three movies, and a likeable character throughout. And his temporary mild darkening of character was quite compatible with temporary infection with a malevolent alien virus. 
Apart from all that it was a good movie.
Edit:- Cheese_Ed, yep, I felt like a mindless popcorn flick, and that's what I got.  |
Edited by - Sean on 05/07/2007 13:19:42 |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 05/07/2007 : 14:13:46
|
Entire sub-plots were discarded just as suddenly as they were introduced. What hapened to Flint Marko's daughter, anyway? And why did he suddenly want to kill Spider-Man after the fight in the sewers? Surely it's got nothing to do with his losing the money he stole, because I don't see why he couldn't have replicated his earlier feat.
Another disappointment were the action scenes: my feeble Homo Sapiens eyes could not register properly what the heck was going on. I know that's half the point, but I would have appreciated a break, now and again, from the epilepsy inducing barrage of lights and sound during some of the action scenes.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Spiderman 3
