Spider-Man 3

[eatmyshorts]

Wow, I come hope from an awesome, epic, amazing movie, only to be defeated on the forum by rediculous claims of why this movie was bad. I quit!

[TheLuckyOne]

Well, six of us liked it (counting you) and two didn't. That's still a pretty good ratio.

-D

[sarahbot]

I didn't, and it can be summed up in three little words: FIVE MUSICAL NUMBERS. At one point the guy behind me said "What is this, Spider-Man the musical?" It was just . . . weird.

(minor spoilers below)

Harry's amnesia - which felt really soap-opera-y - was funny at first. By which I mean it was funny to see Harry doing a still life and everything, and I liked his interactions with Peter and MJ. But I never felt like this was really important. And all my friends were angry that the way Peter and MJ broke up was never resolved. OK, so Harry engineered this and . . . it's never mentioned again?

After being slammed over the head in the ads that I would get to see Venom, who is SO COOL, he felt really rushed. Topher Grace is awesome, Brock was incredibly charming, Venom was awesome. I still think it's genius casting to have Topher Grace because he and Tobey Maguire are so often mistaken for each other. The pairing of Spider-Man and Venom is gently reinforced throughout the movie with their alter-egos SO WELL - both photographers but Brock is able to seal the deal by cheating. Brock's going out with Gwen but it's nothing like Peter & MJ's relationship. And the scene in the church was so good it was honestly like I'd started watching another movie after the fiasco of the jazz club scene.
... So why did we get to see so little of Venom? I left the movie really disappointed about the ending (though that cage was pretty cool).

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

What made the musical numbers even worse was the fact that none of the songs were any good. It sounded like Kirsten Dunst was lip-syncing to an old 78 from the '20s.

And so the ratio goes from 1:3 to 1:2. Feelin' the heat?

[TheLuckyOne]

oogieboogieman said:

And so the ratio goes from 1:3 to 1:2. Feelin' the heat?

Nah. It was a good movie, it wasn't a perfect movie. It could, and maybe should, have been two movies instead. But I'll still take it over almost every other movie that's going to make $100+ million this summer.

-D

[blinkfan]

Harry's butler. This is the first movie we've seen him in, and he just happens to know how Harry's dad died. Real convenient

Actually Oogie, Harry's butler appears in 1 AND 2, but had very little lines, I also disagree with all your problems with it, I thought all those scenes and everything you mentioned were fantastic and well done. I agree its not a perfect movie but it was still freaking good.

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

I honestly don't remember him being in the first two movies, but even if he was, it's still really dubious the way the butler not only knows exactly how Norman died (Jeeves must be a pretty good forensics expert to match up his stab wounds to the blades on his hovercraft), but keeps that information to himself for so long.

[eatmyshorts]

Wow, you people sure are picky. I didn't even notice the musical numbers...the one in the beginning was the only one not interrupted with dialog and they weren't even that long. And who cares how the butler knew how Norman died? It's a movie about a guy who is a spider, how realistic can it be? It was a true superhero movie, easily surpassing the second in action and plot, and even dialog. Spider-man 2 was like a soap opera with a few comic book characters thrown in...i still really liked it, but come on, everyone acts like spider-man 2 is some un-surrpassable chalice of awesomeness, when really, i'm surprised people don't think that about this new, epic chapter of the greatest comic book movie series.

[coccatino]

I can't even begin to describe how ridiculously disappointing this movie was for me. And I didn't have particularly high expectations.

Good effects, terrible character development.

I will say one thing though... Willem Dafoe died in the first movie, and I'm still freaking scared of him. >shudder< uber creepy.

[blinkfan]

Dude, you guys are missing the point, I am starting to wonder if you guys EVEN saw the movie. There is plenty of character development.

[TheLuckyOne]

Let's keep it friendly, boys and girls. Sometime next week or so, Justin will post my review and I'll tell you how to feel about it. Until then, let's all remember that it's just a movie. A really, really, ungodly lucrative movie.

-D

[deusdragonexx]

eatmyshorts said:

Wow, you people sure are picky. I didn't even notice the musical numbers...the one in the beginning was the only one not interrupted with dialog and they weren't even that long. And who cares how the butler knew how Norman died? It's a movie about a guy who is a spider, how realistic can it be? It was a true superhero movie, easily surpassing the second in action and plot, and even dialog. Spider-man 2 was like a soap opera with a few comic book characters thrown in...i still really liked it, but come on, everyone acts like spider-man 2 is some un-surrpassable chalice of awesomeness, when really, i'm surprised people don't think that about this new, epic chapter of the greatest comic book movie series.

I agree with you on the musical numbers bit. I don't think that they were overdone or anything like that. I barely even noticed them.

However, I will say this. SM3 was terrific eye candy. As just something to look at, it hit all of the right notes. But those were the only notes that it hit. To continue that analogy, SM3 is a lot like the little brother of an amazing singer. You'd think that, since they are related and trained by the same person, the little brother will be just as good as the older brother. But the moment he opens his mouth, you realize that, while the older brother sang almost perfectly, rarely botching a note, the little brother sings like a cat with throat cancer, rarely nailing a note.

I said all of that to say, SM3 most certainly, in terms of plot, character development, direction, and dialogue, was not on par with the previous two SM movies. And, yes, SM2 is being treated like the holy grail of SM movies. Because it had an excellent plot with a villain who was perfectly developed. Not to mention the movie was very well paced.

SM3 was none of those things. It was not, as you put it, epic, nor any other positive adjectives. It was trite and contrived.


Oh, and before I forget, about the butler. The reason everyone is pretty miffed about that is all about simple verisimilitude. That was the most unrealistic plot point since Christ was a carpenter. Sam Raimi et al created a world, dropped us in it, and then broke all of that world's rules. As a writer that is never what you want to do.

[blinkfan]

How about we stop arguing it could be worse....it could be Ghost Rider bad.

[coccatino]

blinkfan said:

How about we stop arguing it could be worse....it could be Ghost Rider bad.

haha! indeed. And I have to agree with what Drew said in his review, as well- Topher Grace was some brilliant casting- such a great foil for Tobey MG.

[Al]

_{...I liked Ghost Rider...}