Jump to content
Christian

Spider Man 3:SPOILERS!!!

Recommended Posts

A slightly disorganized, spoiler-free review of Spider-Man 3:

 

Too damn much. They just wanted get everything in there including the kitchen sink. However Raimi still managed to keep it from being terrible. It was really almost two movies worth of story and character crammed into one. The effects were utterly fantastic at times such as Sandman and just good at others such as the some of the fight scenes. The fighting was entertaining showing Spidey doing all the things I've wanted Spidey to do. Lots of great arial fights. Overall not a bad movie. It was heavy on action yet it suffered, I think, some from not having some of the solid plotting of the 2nd movie. Maybe Michael Chabon was the key.

Spider-Man 2 is the superior movie. This was the Return of the Jedi of the Spider trilogy.

 

Bit n pieces:

- Bryce Dallas Howard is gorgeous. Her character came off boring, which is a shame. I also kept thinking she would make a much better MJ than Dunst.

- MJ wines most of the movie. Kirsten Dunst annoys the hell out of me. Worst acting in movie with strong performances.

- Maguire did a damn fine job.

- Franco was the man. Harry Osborn nearly stole the movie.

- They had James Crowell for goodness sake and they wasted him.

- Hayden Church was great as the Sandman. I didn't mind at all having him connected to Ben Parker's murder. It worked within the context of the movie. NOT THE COMICS. Listening Marvel???

- Sandman pulling himself together for the first time was absolutely awesome.

- Grace was decent. He does sleaze-ball well. But there wasn't really enough time spent to develop Brock or Venom.

- Vemon looks much better on film than still pictures.

- Raimi is directing a superhero movie not a musical.

- The Goblin suit still looked stupid.

- All of the cameos, with the exception of Bruce Campbell, felt tacked on and forced. Yes even Stan Lee's. And the Raimi family, especially.

- The origin of the suit was not handled well at all. There were many other ways it could have been done better.

- Spider-Man beat Venom in an interesting and clever way emphasizes that Peter is man of science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like Dunst as Mary Jane.

Howard really looks like Gwen Stacy in the picture of her I saw.

She looks different in every picture I see of her, looking on the internet just now. She looks really young in one. Plump in another. Red head. Blonde hair. She's all over the place! Which is the real Howard? She's The Chameleon!

Although, doing research, it's a bit goofy that Dunst used to be blonde and Howard used to be a red-head. I thought Dunst was a natural "cherry".

OK, I found this pic of Howard. I think she looks a lot like Mary Jane in this picture:

http://images.askmen.com/galleries/actress...d-picture-1.jpg

 

Gulp! Uncle Ben returns? Uncle Ben is a murderer? Sandman shows up? All in the current Spidey story-line....

NOT IN THE COMICS!

 

I'm really interested in how they explain the black costume in the movie.

Is hoping it crashed to Earth in a comet and Peter poked it with a stick when it came alive and bonded with him (the symbiote, the thinking man's Blob) reasonable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie was a huge disappointment. An overlong, bloated, mawkish, sometimes downright INSANE (in a bad way), occasionally ridiculous and emotionally incoherent. Basically it's a lot like a Bollywood movie which explains why the audience I was with ate it up. This is not to say there's nothing in it to like. Bruce Campbell and JK Simmons were hilarious. Scenes with Sandman were very cool. Evil Peter Parker was fun. But given my high expectations, it was an enormous disappointment. I heard Raimi didn't want to do this movie and I think this shows in the finished product - much of it plays like one big joke on the studio (that isn't very funny for the audience). The screenplay is one of the worst ever, featuring people breaking off in the middle of action sequences to cry with quivering lips (I shit you not) and jawdroppingly bad theatrics. There are so many things going on in the film that Raimi resolves it all of a sudden in the last 15 mins by inserting a good half hour's worth of exposition on a news program. When Spiderman has to sit and watch the news to figure out what's going on, this is a bad sign. Oh, and where the fuck did Bernard the Senile Butler come from???? It was positively Lynchian when a wizened old midget butler comes and tells Green Goblin Jr that he loves him and his father as family. Alfred that dude was not.

 

Venom was WASTED cos most scenes where he was around were cool. Sandman was well played by Church but criminally underused. There was next to no reason for him to be in this movie other than to be the subject of a hideously sentimental, preachy and terribly written subplot involving Uncle Ben.

 

For fuck's sake, Maguire DANCES. And MJ SINGS. Oh, and every scene with Aunt May in it is sheer Agony. "Revenge is a poison that takes you over".

 

This is why The Dark Knight rules all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm really interested in how they explain the black costume in the movie.

Is hoping it crashed to Earth in a comet and Peter poked it with a stick when it came alive and bonded with him (the symbiote, the thinking man's Blob) reasonable?

 

It does indeed crash to Earth in a meteorite. However Peter has no knowledge even though it happens in the same damn park. Spider Sense wasn't working apparently. Then the goop hitches a ride with Peter and eventually bonds with him to the tune of "Strangers In the Night."

(Ok I made up the part about the song, but with the rest of painful muscial bits I would not have been surprised)

I just think it would have been better to have Peter discover it while assisting a professor in a lab while they are studying it after it crashed to Earth. It was just too coincidental that is just happens to land a very short distance away from Peter.

 

I agree with Abhi; too much crying. There's no crying in crime fighting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Raimi saying that he refused point blank to have Venom in it because he thought that was a deeply crap character at one point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wasn't Raimi saying that he refused point blank to have Venom in it because he thought that was a deeply crap character at one point?

I seem to recall something similar too, unless I'm just sympathising.

But then personally Spidey's possibly got one of the worst rogues gallery.

In the comics Venom and it's origin was a breath of fresh air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh my, is it really so bad?

Personally yeah.

 

For the record (Any) I quite enjoyed Spiderman 2. I thought that it was good Hollywood.

Now I'm not the biggest Spidey fan, I find him to be a bit of a one trick Superhero, but enjoy him in team or team up books.

Hopwever all three films missed an integral facet of Peter's character.

His comedy.

Now this means far more than some of his hideous one liners.

It's like the Comedian of Watchmen. Peter is Pagliacci the Clown and his comedy is directly proportional to the accumulation of shit in his life (Clones!).

It's his coping mechanism and this excellantly only serves to amplify the sadness of these situations.

 

Perhaps this might have been "too complex" to depict onscreen, but it personally removed an entire dimension to the character.

Topher Grace (The all to obvious anti Peter Parker) ironically fealt closer to the Spiderman of the comics.

 

This installment had terrible dialogue overall, awful acting in parts, piss poor plotting and plot contrivances aswell as some damn near satanic musical sequences.

The special effects appeared cheap (Admittadly some great Sandman bits to begin with) and the CG battles were for my tastes far too OTT (Albeit imaginative) to emotionally engage with.

 

It made me feel that comic books really are for kids, something that I'm having a hard time convincing my missus of thanks to Hollywoods versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like I disliked it a little less than Testy but he's on the mark with everything he says. It's just that I did glean SOME entertainment out of it and I did think there were a lot of cool bits in it. I enjoyed watching pretty much every Sandman scene, for example. They involved - by far - the best acting and FX in the movie.

 

Despite what Raimi has to say, Venom is IMO the most interesting villain in the Spiderman series and there are glimpses of this potential in the movie. The fact that it is wasted makes this movie that much more disappointing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it was alright. nowhere near as good as the first two ones though. I agree with the previous reviews: just too much going on, and the script is a mess. that said, I found it an enjoyable mess, with quite a lot of cringeworthy stuff as well. I really did get the idea that this was basically Sam Raimi's big old fuck you to the studio, almost everything was in-jokes and cameos. Just about every action scene included numerous slapstick head bumps (well, the sound fx made them slapstick, really) and such. in fact, this was probably the most Evil Dead of all the Spidey flicks (except the Doc Ock operation scene from part 2). the exposition was incredibly hamfisted, the acting all over the place, and the musical numbers were way too much... and yet I still enjoyed it. it wasn't a very good movie but I don't regret seeing it, as I laughed my ass off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Raimi saying that he refused point blank to have Venom in it because he thought that was a deeply crap character at one point?

I seem to recall something similar too, unless I'm just sympathising.

But then personally Spidey's possibly got one of the worst rogues gallery.

In the comics Venom and it's origin was a breath of fresh air.

HUH?! Really?

 

Spider Man has probably the best rogues gallery at Marvel, and I'd rate his rogues gallery second only to Batman.

There might be better villains out there....but talking rogues gallery, I can't think of many to beat Spidey-baby's (TM Adam West).

 

Most people thought Venom's origin in the comics was a bit crap.

Did you mean the Ultimate comics, or were you just saying in comparison to the movie now?

I like the idea of the black costume and the symbiote, and ignoring the origin, the story-line about the black costume taking Peter Parker over in the comics was cool....but the origin of both the costume and Venom is pretty stupid in the comics with Battleworld and Eddie Brock (it made me ask, "Why?" when it was Brock who became Venom. His character wasn't very developed in the comic).

I like the idea of the symbiote coming to Earth in a comet, myself, even if the rest of the origin is handled awful.

 

Abhi-Venom's the most interesting Spider Man villain? He's always been played as so one-dimensional in the comics. He's an awesome graphic and if you're into big, tough villain fights he's great for that, but as far as characterization, Venom was never really given a lot in the comics. He's a huge product of early-90s superhero comics, where giant muscular dark characters with edginess were heavily marketed, even though they didn't have much of a personality besides their size and edginess.

And, it lead to Carnage and Marvel quickly trying to turn Venom into an anti-hero to make more money off the character.....Ugh!

I haven't read one good Venom story. Unless you're talking about the Ultimate version, which I've never read.

Although I will agree that given other choices, Venom might be the most interesting post-1970s Spider-villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the people here. It...wasn't very good. The acting was piss-awful (James Franco was particularly cringeworthy), the script was deeply poor, and the only things that acutally found funny were Bruce Campbell, and that huge, campy portrait of Willem Dafoe in Harry's room.

 

Thomas Hayden Church was awesome as the Sandman, but as Abhi pointed out, he was barely used, and that sucked. Topher Grace is a good actor, but it seemed like he was trying too hard this time. Also, it had an Azzarello-esque ending, in that it was more of a stopping point than actual closure.

 

Weak film. I'm disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday and i wasn't dissapointed at all i thaught it was great, ok im not going to review it because hell im not paid to do that. I think the film was made to keep everyone happy, the comic lovers, the film lovers, kids and adults that just grew up watching the shows. And in that manner they did a damn fine job.

Short word i loved it, best so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abhi-Venom's the most interesting Spider Man villain? He's always been played as so one-dimensional in the comics. He's an awesome graphic and if you're into big, tough villain fights he's great for that, but as far as characterization, Venom was never really given a lot in the comics. He's a huge product of early-90s superhero comics, where giant muscular dark characters with edginess were heavily marketed, even though they didn't have much of a personality besides their size and edginess.

And, it lead to Carnage and Marvel quickly trying to turn Venom into an anti-hero to make more money off the character.....Ugh!

I haven't read one good Venom story. Unless you're talking about the Ultimate version, which I've never read.

Although I will agree that given other choices, Venom might be the most interesting post-1970s Spider-villain.

 

I'll rephrase. Venom has the potential to be the most interesting Spiderman villain. There's a lot you can do with that whole concept - it maximizes the utility of the 'villains are generally more interesting than the heroes' thing. It's a very unoriginal concept but one that can be a lot of fun. Glimpses of this potential were there in the movie since I enjoyed watching evil Parker more than weepy Parker but, ultimately, the character was wasted. I really haven't read very much Spiderman so I don't know about whether or not he's been used properly. I just find him to be the most interesting of what Testy rightly terms as a somewhat inferior rogues gallery. I know I just said I haven't read much Spiderman but I have read at least a few comics involving pretty much all the villains and I just don't find any of them really engaging. Also, I'm not big on pre-1970s comics.

 

As Sethos said, the whole thing plays like Raimi going 'Force me to make a movie, eh? See what I do with your 500 million dollars ahahahahahaha! LOOK, a wizened retarded butler! There, Maguire channelling John Travolta! Ahaha! Enjoying that action sequence, eh? Fuck you, I shall pause it to make EVERYONE INVOLVED CRY!'

 

Crappy movie.

 

I will say again that it is worth one watch for the Sandman scenes, Campbell and scattered entertaining/funny bits. Also if you want to see how utterly incoherently batshit insane this whole mess was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Sethos said, the whole thing plays like Raimi going 'Force me to make a movie, eh? See what I do with your 500 million dollars ahahahahahaha! LOOK, a wizened retarded butler! There, Maguire channelling John Travolta! Ahaha! Enjoying that action sequence, eh? Fuck you, I shall pause it to make EVERYONE INVOLVED CRY!'

 

Crappy movie.

 

I will say again that it is worth one watch for the Sandman scenes, Campbell and scattered entertaining/funny bits. Also if you want to see how utterly incoherently batshit insane this whole mess was.

 

Im sure he could turn round and say 'Abhi, lets see you do better'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I will agree that given other choices, Venom might be the most interesting post-1970s Spider-villain.

More so than The Rose, Hobgoblin or Black Cat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im sure he could turn round and say 'Abhi, lets see you do better'

 

Heh, dude, this is a ridiculous argument. He's getting paid millions of dollars to do a movie that people are paying to watch. He has a responsibility to his audience to make a good movie. I am PAYING to watch this movie, I don't HAVE to be able to do better in order to criticize him when he makes a shitty movie that is a waste of my money. A person doesn't have to be able to make a good movie in order to know when he's been cheated of his ticket money and he damn well has the right to criticize the filmmaker that did so.

 

If this was a student film being exhibited for free in a student film festival and I was a fellow filmmaker sitting there and dissing his movie, yes, he'd have the right to say 'let's see you do better'. But given that I am paying for his product, it's an entirely different story.

 

I mean, seriously, Mick, would you go to an expensive restaurant and order a steak well done and then not complain if someone gave you a half cooked piece of rat meat? Would you accept it if the chef told you 'let's see if you can do better'? No. It's the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abhis right, Mick. If youre willing to pay for something that has the potential to be good (And markets itself accordingly), but it turns out different, since the producer didnt give a hoot, than the buyer has a god-given right to critizise.

Especially if theres a fanbase that believes in you and waited for a particular product.

I cant play one fucking instrument, but i think i can decide for myself what music to listen to and to which not.

 

Testy: They try to darken the film with Spidey posing as ass and it got childish?

Damn! I dont want to be disappointed again :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About ten minutes into this flick I had to restrain myself from shouting Mary Jane.....SHUT THE FUCK UP ! I saw an interview where Dunst said they couldn't do a Spiderman movie without her ..... :icon_rolleyes:

 

The fights where very cool and I liked the evil Parker stuff . The Sandman wacking Uncle Ben was stupid to say the least .

 

I did overall like this movie but there was plenty of shit spead aourn the good parts .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Im sure he could turn round and say 'Abhi, lets see you do better'

 

Heh, dude, this is a ridiculous argument. He's getting paid millions of dollars to do a movie that people are paying to watch. He has a responsibility to his audience to make a good movie. I am PAYING to watch this movie, I don't HAVE to be able to do better in order to criticize him when he makes a shitty movie that is a waste of my money. A person doesn't have to be able to make a good movie in order to know when he's been cheated of his ticket money and he damn well has the right to criticize the filmmaker that did so.

 

If this was a student film being exhibited for free in a student film festival and I was a fellow filmmaker sitting there and dissing his movie, yes, he'd have the right to say 'let's see you do better'. But given that I am paying for his product, it's an entirely different story.

 

I mean, seriously, Mick, would you go to an expensive restaurant and order a steak well done and then not complain if someone gave you a half cooked piece of rat meat? Would you accept it if the chef told you 'let's see if you can do better'? No. It's the same thing.

 

Diffrence of opinion everyone online is slagging it off but i've yet to here one person actually say it, it just seems a bit of a shame if you think the film HAD to be made to your liking. you ask for a stake how you want it you get the directors vision if you dont want to see something someone else made to their liking dont go to the damn cinema, especially not to see a sam raimi who makes the films he wants to see. Yeah i know venom wasn't his choice but i think sony called it right as i wet myself with excitment when he was included and so did alot of spider-mans fans.

 

Again its made by the director to his (artistic) vision its not burger king where you can 'have it your way'.

 

I'm not saying like it but dont trash the film and the director because he didn't do it how you wanted it, you put other people of experiencing it for them self which seems a shame, thats what paid reviewers are for and hell most of them are cocks, which i know none of you guys. Maybe just say 'well i didn't like it' not 'huh crappy movie'. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe just say 'well i didn't like it' not 'huh crappy movie'. :D

I think people are saying they don't like it because they think it's a crappy movie, Mick. That's certainly how most of the moaning about it above strikes me.

I'm not saying like it but dont trash the film and the director because he didn't do it how you wanted it

If that wasn't acceptable for Constanteen, why is it acceptable for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abhis right, Mick. If youre willing to pay for something that has the potential to be good (And markets itself accordingly), but it turns out different, since the producer didnt give a hoot

 

Yeah i'm sure they didn't care, try or get stress out over a film with a huge budget and fan base....

Probably no prssure at all in fact i could even see spideys zipper :-)

 

Maybe just say 'well i didn't like it' not 'huh crappy movie'. :D

I think people are saying they don't like it because they think it's a crappy movie, Mick. That's certainly how most of the moaning about it above strikes me.

I'm not saying like it but dont trash the film and the director because he didn't do it how you wanted it

If that wasn't acceptable for Constanteen, why is it acceptable for this?

 

I dont think it was acceptable for constantine i actually liked the film, it was made for movie go'ers (i dont actually know how to put that) and not for the fans, a stupid choice but in that respect it was a good film, i dont like the fact its nothing like hellblazer but it was still a good film.

 

And about Spidey3

People are saying they dont like it because it didn't appeal to them its a bit harsh to call it a crappy movie because it wasn't what they liked. I loved it, i thought it was alot better than the first two so do most people i've spoken to (comic book fans and not).

 

 

So a crappy movie it was not, it didn't please a few people here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...