|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on May 7, 2007 15:41:26 GMT -5
I did too. Ghost Rider's badness was mostly deliberate and it knew it was over the top to begin with.
I was disappointed in SP3. Too much unnecessary, floridly soap-opera-dramatic conversation. Had me stirring restlessly in my seat, which is a bad, bad thing in a superhero movie. Venom was barely there and shouldn't have needed help - he was the biggest bad for a very long time. I don't think many characters in the comic have surpassed him for sheer compelling horror.
The biggest bright spot for me was Thomas Hayden Christianson as the Sandman. I really didn't think that could possibly be a serious, dignified role, but it was, and a lot of that had to do with his acting job.
Totally agree with previous commentators on the musical numbers plus the butler. And something else others have forgotten to mention:
Even if Norman Osborn WAS stabbed with his own weapon, that doesn't mean he did it himself, accidentally or on purpose (and given it happened by way of the glider, I don't think you could tell that forensically). It's totally possible Peter could've done it, and in fact the actual circumstances made it look rather as if he meant it that way rather than just dodging the glider.
|
|
nellhows
Boomstick Coordinator
Posts: 60
|
Post by nellhows on May 7, 2007 16:01:42 GMT -5
I saw the movie on Saturday, and while I overall liked it as a popcorn movie, a couple things bugged me about the symbiote
1) A meteorite with this random ooze comes to earth, lands in central park, and just happens to attach to Spider-man's scooter? And it happens to give people powers that are exactly the same as Spiderman's, except more? That was just lazy. I'm not saying they had to go all Secret Wars to introduce the costume, but surely there could be a better reason for it.
2) Did Dr. Connors tell Peter about the sonic weakness? I don't think he did, so why did Spidey go to a church to get rid of the costume? Just happenned to work out. Again, seemed lazy.
That being said, Bruce Campbell is the king. He almost reminded me of John Cleese from Mr. Creosote sketch.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on May 7, 2007 16:10:05 GMT -5
Too much unnecessary, floridly soap-opera-dramatic conversation. Er... have you ever actually READ a Spider-Man comic, Shalen?  Which I guess is unfair of me, since I criticized the same thing in Ghost Rider. But GR is a more recent comic creation and the movie felt like more a product of the modern age, when melodramatic dialogue is less accepted. Most of the best Spidey stories are from back when soap opera-esque dialogue was the norm. Venom was barely there and shouldn't have needed help - he was the biggest bad for a very long time. I don't think many characters in the comic have surpassed him for sheer compelling horror. Enh... I've got no problem with Venom needing help. His hype exceeded his grasp for a while in the 90s, but while he's a powerful villain, he's really no more so than the Goblin or Doc Ock or Electro. He's got two pretty big, readily exploited weaknesses -- fire and loud sounds -- and the debate still rages pretty hard among Spider-Man fans over whether he was a legitimately cool villain or an overly hyped B-lister. I tend to veer more toward the former (and loved seeing him in the movie), but I've got no problem with him seeking out help -- these are bad guys, they're not looking for a fair fight. Besides, the Sinister Six can't do the job and there's... uh, six of them. -D |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on May 7, 2007 16:21:24 GMT -5
1) A meteorite with this random ooze comes to earth, lands in central park, and just happens to attach to Spider-man's scooter? And it happens to give people powers that are exactly the same as Spiderman's, except more? That was just lazy. I'm not saying they had to go all Secret Wars to introduce the costume, but surely there could be a better reason for it. Wouldn't it just work the same way it did in the comics... that is, its first human host was Peter, so it sort of imprinted itself with his powers? That's why Venom has Spidey-like powers like webbing and strength in the comics; I'm sure the filmmakers just assumed audiences would assume the same thing. But the fact that it apparently hid in his apartment for days doing nothing kinda stretches credibility. 2) Did Dr. Connors tell Peter about the sonic weakness? I don't think he did, so why did Spidey go to a church to get rid of the costume? Just happenned to work out. Again, seemed lazy. I didn't get the impression he intentionally went there... it felt more to me like he stumbled in there as someplace he was familiar with (he went there earlier, before the black costume) in his efforts to get it off, and it happened to work out for him that the church bells drove the symbiote off. -D |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on May 7, 2007 17:13:02 GMT -5
Er... have you ever actually READ a Spider-Man comic, Shalen? -D The big difference here is that in the comics, massive blocks of exposition or explanation are generally presented with visuals of people flying through the air - Spiderman's aerial antics often provide a vehicle for the exposition. Personal moments are certainly present and often bathetic, but they're not generally allowed to drag on for nearly as long as they do in SP3. |
|
eatmyshorts
Ghostbuster
"Do you like-a-da Fat Boys?"
Posts: 536
|
Post by eatmyshorts on May 7, 2007 18:16:02 GMT -5
I did too. Ghost Rider's badness was mostly deliberate and it knew it was over the top to begin with. I was disappointed in SP3. Too much unnecessary, floridly soap-opera-dramatic conversation. Had me stirring restlessly in my seat, which is a bad, bad thing in a superhero movie. Funny...kind of how i felt when i saw spierman 2 (don't get me wrong, i love all three)....which was basically a love story...and almost nothing but dialogue...at least 3 had a good mix of action, plot, and dialog. I swear, people these days want actionless crap...i won't name drop any movie, but come on. Anytime there's any action in a movie that lasts for more than 5 minutes everyone says "TOO MUCH ACTION, NO DEPTH, NO PLOT, Etc. Etc." It's really quite irritating. I wish sometimes they would go back to the holy grail decade of action movies, the 80s, where action movies actually contained action. Sorry, i guess this is starting to become unspidey related, just a rant i've been waiting to "pinch off". Ew. Another complaint i've been constantly hearing (not really by anyone on the forum) the new "bad" peter, which was in all honesty, my favorite part of the movie. It's supposed to be cheesy, it's supposed to be over the top...it's a superhero movie...and it's by Sam Raimi. Come on people, take it for what it is. |
|
eatmyshorts
Ghostbuster
"Do you like-a-da Fat Boys?"
Posts: 536
|
Post by eatmyshorts on May 7, 2007 18:25:10 GMT -5
Whoa, Drew, great review. Your gripe about it cramming a lot in was pretty much my only gripe, too! I love when a reviewer thinks for me! Yayy!
|
|
|
|
Post by TheOogieBoogieMan on May 7, 2007 18:27:29 GMT -5
Come on people, take it for what it is. |
|
Big T
Ghostbuster
yo
Posts: 323
|
Post by Big T on May 7, 2007 23:02:35 GMT -5
Well, concidering eveyone and their mother has already discussed the crud out of this film I apologise for repeating statements already made.
Over all this movie was not as good as the others.
It was far too sappy and cheesy for one. Sure, drama is good, so is angst and sympathy but not when it is 80% of the film given in horse sized doses.
Also, the "evil" Peter Parker came off as a ridiculous dancing bufoon. I love musicals and dance numbers but there was no reason whatsoever for Parker to become a jazz dancer, he could just have easily been a jerk towards MJ with public displays of affection or a more "real" dance (something you'd see in a jazz club not on a broadway stage).
I LOVED all the villains, sure thay added lots to the sappiness that I previously mentioned but it was administered in manageable doses.
Related to that, the special effects and fight scenes were awesome (though not as good as the Doc Oc fights. Hech, those are pretty much the tip of the ice berg). I loved the look of all the villains, Venom was so cool and I really liked Haden Churchs' Sandman. (Re: Drew's Review, the stay puft sand man comment was hilarious)
Overall and enjoyable film, but it just fell short of the hype and expectations for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 7, 2007 23:30:26 GMT -5
But the fact that it apparently hid in his apartment for days doing nothing kinda stretches credibility. I took it as the symbiote wasn't really drawn to Peter until his life started to unravel. While he was all happy and full of himself, there wasn't anything there for it to focus it's energy on. |
|
coccatino
Ghostbuster
whose baby are you?
Posts: 588
|
Post by coccatino on May 8, 2007 11:52:07 GMT -5
But the fact that it apparently hid in his apartment for days doing nothing kinda stretches credibility. There was an 8 year old sitting behind me who forgot about the symbiote until it appeared again in the apartment and asked where it had been. His dad told him that it was napping because it was tired after its long journey from space. I choose to believe that explanation. |
|
|
|
Post by Spiderdancer on May 8, 2007 12:08:02 GMT -5
It was sitting around playing pc games on Peter's computer while he was gone. It almost gave up the symbiote business when it heard Fallout 3 was in production, but the lure of Evil Pete proved too tempting.
|
|
DTH
Ghostbuster
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Posts: 582
|
Post by DTH on May 9, 2007 5:48:46 GMT -5
Hello everybody!  I've seen Spider-man 3 twice now and may well go and see it for a third time. I really liked it and yet, I agree 100% with what Drew has said: its too crammed. There are two movies here and Venom should have been revealed at the end of this one for a set up for the fourth. In this way, they could have really gone to town on taking down Peter on a dark roadtrip before he realises where he's headed and tries to take off the costume. Plus, it would have been nice to give Sandman his due because they really did a good job on him here. The scene when he first transforms and tries to control his new sand-body is excellent and I liked how they gave this two-bit hoodlum some pathos. Also, I would have appreciated them giving Peter finding out Sandy killed his uncle more credence and given him a reason to go down that dark path. The '90s cartoon handled a non-Secret Wars affected Black Costume saga really well and in that, they had Spidey wail on Rhino until he realised what the costume was doing to him. That's when he ends up in the bell tower, trying to take the costume off. Him wailing on Sandman would have been great and the scene with Goblin Jnr in the mansion and add in his earlier actions against MJ ... sublime! Still, I did really like it and although it could have been better (sloppy writing included), it was good. Remember: kids of like 8 and upwards are going to see this film and so there can be only so much darkness to Spidey. Keep that in mind. We adults would like to see oh-so much more from it, sure, but please, of all the superheroes, Spidey is the one the younger kids want to see. |
|
|
|
Post by StarOpal on May 10, 2007 19:40:51 GMT -5
I really liked the movie. I don't think it was the best of the three, but I don't feel like I wasted my money to go see it. The Spider-Man/Hobgoblin"New Goblin" scenes were fantastic. And I'm with Drew on the whole could've been two movies thing (In fact I waited 'til after I saw it to read the review and that's exactly how I broke up the two possible movies in my mind), but it was still good.
Some thoughts:
1) Spider-Man 3: The Secret of the Ooze
2) The Butler is, in fact, an uber villain. Notice how friggin' long it took him tell Harry about his father's real death? That's because he wanted Harry to do the dirty work of taking out Peter, and have Mary Jane to himself. But she was in danger so he had to set the boy straight. It all makes sense! Probably was slipping the boy hallucinogens too.
3) Tobey Maguire is The Mask.
4) I totally thought there would be an Osbourne Foundation or something like at the end to fund the cure for the girl. But, no. Sam Raimi hates sick children. (I kid, I kid)
5) I love you, Bruce Campbell!
6) I got to see the Balls of Fury trailer... I love you, Christopher Walken! You too, Masi Oka!
|
|
|
|
Post by aargmematey on May 11, 2007 17:05:18 GMT -5
Can anyone tell me why Sandman was a worthwhile addition to this movie? Why couldn't Raimi just have had The Symbiote, Venom, and The New and Improved (with Amnesiac Action!) as the villains?
I mean, Raimi even had to mess with the continuity of the first movie to add in a character that doesn't really do anything worthwhile to the story.
IMO, Sandman should have been cut, with more time to build up Venom (not just Eddie Brock) as an actual character.
|
|
