I had to pass on the Marvel screening Wednesday night because it conflicted with two bowling leagues of mine. So there I was doing a signing at Midtown Comics yesterday, along with fellow Spider-writer Roberto, and a fellow named Shane from Columbia pictures asked if I was interested in seeing a screening at 7 PM that evening.
Hell yeah.
Did I like the film? Yup.
I didn't quite like it as unabashedly as others, but when you've written the novelization of a screenplay, you can't really enjoy the film the way other people do. For most viewers, the burning question is, "What's going to happen?" Well, I knew pretty much what was going to happen, so I had instead my own sets of questions.
How were the ambitious action scenes going to play? Answer: Very well. The intercutting between live action and CGI has become nearly seamless; technically it's light years ahead from the first film (which I have to admit remains my favorite.)
How were the scenes in the script that didn't do jack to advance the plot going to impact on the film's flow? Answer: Not at all, because they cut them all. (I was seated next to Heidi MacDonald and a friend of hers, Ken, and at one point Ken was muttering to me that the film was dragging. I muttered back, "Trust me: It could have been a lot worse.")
How were the actors going to handle some of the dialogue that I felt was wince-worthy? Answer: Hit and miss. Some places provoked unwanted laughter from the audience. Other places worked very well, so kudos to them.
Since the script was a little fuzzy on it, how many times was Spidey going to lose his mask? Answer: I lost count. When it comes out on DVD you may want to turn it into a drinking game. If you really want to get hammered, you can toss down a shot whenever Venom loses his mask as well.
How in the world were they going to make the climax work, considering that some aspects were so filled with schmaltz that all it needed was Patrick Swayze to intone, "Nobody puts Spidey in a corner." Answer: They changed it. Thank God, they changed it. I was really concerned that certain elements would have the audience cringing or howling. As it turned out, Sam Raimi or maybe a test audience or someone obviously shared my concerns because the filmed ending works much better.
Of couse, for those interested in seeing the original ending (with which I did the best I could; I think it actually works better in print than it would have on the screen) plus all the deleted scenes, it's in the novelization. But see the movie first.
Have to say, for me, the acting standout in the film was Thomas Hayden Church's Sandman. I wasn't sure how it was going to play on screen, but as opposed to the somewhat over-the-top histrionics of the other "villains," Church puts forward a perpetual sense of quiet desperation and even--believe it or not--dignity. Brilliant job, I thought.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at May 4, 2007 08:30 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPAD:
awesome you got to see SM3,
btw- we're you in the Station of Penn at about 3pm yesterday ( logic would sa so since you were on your way to Tsquare )-
I almost ran into you and by the time I realized I was already down the stairs and too late to say "HeyPeterDavidcanyou signmyWWHulkandGunslingerBooksBecauseImgoingtomissthesigningatMTC????"
PAD:
awesome you got to see SM3,
btw- we're you in the Station of Penn at about 3pm yesterday ( logic would sa so since you were on your way to Tsquare )-
I almost ran into you and by the time I realized I was already down the stairs and too late to say "HeyPeterDavidcanyou signmyWWHulkandGunslingerBooksBecauseImgoingtomissthesigningatMTC????"
Got to theatre around 15 minutes before midnight and was glad that I bought my ticket weeks in advance. It was sold out (also glad I went by myself, it was much easier to find a good single seat than a pair)
The crowd was psyched for the film and responded positively for the the Shrek 3, Pirates and FF2 trailers. Yeah it was a pro comic crowd, but it was still nice to hear the audience react in a good way to the FF2 preview, especially with the overall response the first film got.
They recapped the first two films very well during the opening credits (no Alex Ross this time) so even if you missed the first two you could get the gist of the story.
As for the movie itself....
WOW. There's A LOT packed into this 2.5 hour film! I mean A LOT! There are several down time scenes, but it never seemed to drag. Raimi kept the story moving very smoothly. Random trhoughts:
• The Sandman origin scene is awesome.
• Both "required" cameos are included (and very good)
• I liked the casting (though he doesn't have much to do) of James Cromwell as Captain Stacy.
• Great J.J.J. scenes
• Tobey almost is too nerdy as Parker (nice how they introduced Gwen, though)
• There's an awful convenient scene towards the end (well, IMO anyway) but I can see why it was there, with everything else going on they had no time!
• The preview words were correct on who the real villain was in this film. He's quite an asshole!
Overall, I'd give it 3.75 out of 4. If this is indeed Raimi, McGuire & Dunst's last film, he ends it quite nicely.
Now bring on FF2!!!!
I picked up tickets 10 days ago for a 5pm showing later today.
I'm sure I'll love the film, but I'm also certain that I'm going to hate the excessive amount of mask removing that I expect to see. It's really the only thing I hated about Spidey 2 (and I could've thrown up over the 'Spidey as the Messiah' crap in the subway/el car). It's like it's in McGuire's contract that he has to have X amount of face time.
Hey, guess what? Spidey isn't the FF, or most of the X-Men, and so on: he wear a freakin' mask, so keep the damn thing on!
He loses his mask a lot. Pete should consider some sort of chin strap.
Even more repetitive was the crying. After the fifth time a character welled up the audience was just laughing at it.
On the plus side, 3 is both the darkest and funniest Spider-Man yet, and the effects/fight scenes are amazing.
Only wanted to yell at the screen twice; at the beginning, when Spidey apparently ignores people still in danger to bicker with Topher Grace (or else he saved the cute one and he's good for the day), and at the end when he had an emotional moment with a bad guy while someone nearby really could have used some emergency medical assistance.
Excellent if flawed movie.
PAD,
Count your blessings that you didn't have to rescue the screenplay for "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer". The novelization for this one indicates that it will be just as hideous as "Spider-Man 3" is good.
Peter,
Heidi made a posting yesterday that says she wants her name spelled correctly or else. I know you probably just made a typo, but she wants the world to know she is Scottish, not Irish.
Hey, guess what? Spidey isn't the FF, or most of the X-Men, and so on: he wear a freakin' mask, so keep the damn thing on!
Heh. I understand the sentiment.
On the other hand, you take away 90% of a film actor's tools with a mask. There's a definite media translation problem here which has not been satisfactory been solved...
On the other hand, you take away 90% of a film actor's tools with a mask.
A good actor makes it work.
V For Vendetta wasn't the best adaptation in the world, but Weaving did a great job in the role. And at every turn I was just waiting for V's mask to come off... I mean, that's what they do in movies with high-paid actors, right? :)
I got to see Spider-Man 3 at a very strange midnight showing: for a 10 dollar ticket, you got to see the flick at 12:01, prefaced by a pretty decent Italian buffet. (Great meatballs, passable pasta, decent pizza, greasy chicken and adequate salad. No spiders were evident in the preparation of this meal.)
The crowd was in a good mood, and the theater had been recently renovated, so the viewing experience was better than usual.
Overall, I liked the film. Bruce Campbell channelled his inner John Cleese quite nicely, and the Sandman's new role in the killing of Uncle Ben still doesn't let Peter off the hook for not stopping the thief.
Loved the ending battle with the Sandman. Neat "Where Monsters Dwell" 50's vibe.
Didn't care much for MJ's attitude, life-changing exposition dropped into the plot almost randomly,
("Oh, by the way, sir: I've seen a lot of things...")and the criminal under-use of Topher Grace as Brock/Venom.
And where the heck does Peter stash those extra masks of his?
Best trilogy-ender since... ever! ("X3" limped to its conclusions, "Jedi" had Ewoks, and the less said about "Superman III," the better.
Jeff, (movie)Peter has at least a dozen spare masks at any one time. It's the only way that he can keep up his tendency to lose them at the drop of a hat. ;)
"Best trilogy-ender since... ever! ("X3" limped to its conclusions, "Jedi" had Ewoks, and the less said about "Superman III," the better."
I beg to differ: "Back to the Future III." Totally fantastic conclusion to a trilogy. And certainly "Return of the King" is up there, although I don't know if that "counts" since it was adapted.
PAD
How were the actors going to handle some of the dialogue that I felt was wince-worthy?
It wasn't worse than the part of "Spider-Man 2" where Peter was trying to soothe a frustrated MJ by spontaneously reciting poetry to her, was it? That still makes me shudder, and I only listned to it once!
Richard J. Marcej said "Tobey almost is too nerdy as Parker"
Not having seen the film, I can't comment on that point, and it's been a while since I've read Spider-Man's adventures with any regularity; but based on what I've read in the past, I've always had the impression that Peter Parker's basic persona has remained unchanged, despite his abilities. In other words, if he had a tendency to be "nerdy" before the spider bite (and I think the term would probably have applied) he'd still have such tendencies post bite.
Would Peter Parker as Peter Parker be as sarcastic, flip, insulting and confrontational as he is when he's operating as Spider-Man. My sense is no, he wouldn't. Or at least not to the same degree. Sure, Peter has stood up to JJJ (and other adversaries) on occasion, and an adult Peter would likely be more willing to stand his ground than his teenage self would have; but when he's Spidey, he can really cut loose.
Or could, before he revealed his identity to the world. Like I said, I'm not reading any current Spidey-related stories, but I have to wonder whether he's as flip and in-your-face with JJJ now that JJJ knows who's behind the mask.
The same question also applies to villains he fights. In an issue of the original What If...? series, (#30, if I remember correctly), entitled "What if Spider-Man's Clone Had Lived?" the clone, believing himself to be the real Spidey, encounters the Kingpin. The Clone has no idea whom the Kingpin is, and when Kingpin warns that he's not a patient man, the Clone responds,
"Yeah, I figured you for a patient, pal. Did the doctors let you out for the weekend?" It's a typical Spidey-type quip, and one of my favorites, which is why I cited it. But would Spider-Man, whether he be the original or the Clone, have been so flip with this obviously dangerous individual if the Kingpin knew his name?
I don't believe so. In the comics, Peter is married and relatively successful as a teacher and freelance photographer (assuming he's still doing both or either). It's a far cry from his beginnings, but even so, I think he'll always have bouts of self-doubt. In some ways he's like Captain Horatio Hornblower (a comparison that I hadn't thought of until now). Even as Hornblower rose in rank and importance in the British Navy, he never quite lost his self-doubt and self criticism.
Peter portrayed as too nerdy in the film? Perhaps. I'll have to see it and evaluate the performance; but again, my sense of the character has always been that Spidey's mask has let Peter reveal a side of himself he'd likely have been reluctant to show if people knew it was him.
Rick
"How were the actors going to handle some of the dialogue that I felt was wince-worthy?"
Well, the audience that I just saw it with did laugh at some unintended places. I didn't laugh at those, though. I thought they really crammed way to much in the film, but overall it was well done. I agree with what everyone has been saying about Thomas Haden Church - he was great.
I was surprised by some of the things done with Harry.
Neil
I knew "Return of the King" was going to trip me up on the "greatest trilogy-ender" post, but decided to ride out my current enthusiasm for Spidey 3.
Totally forgot about "Back to the Future." D'oh!
What else did I miss?
Saw it today (and have Spidey 1 playing now) and thought it was great.
I wasn't surprised when the first less-than-positive reviews started hitting. Really, it's part of a well received, hugely successful franchise so I wasn't surprised critics were gunning for the third movie.
The worst I'll say about it now is that it could've used a more upbeat "goodbye" at the end. As it is, a lot of the movie and the ending is so somber I suspect that'll affect a lot of people's feelings that the the movie isn't as "good" as the others.
As for Venom losing his 'mask' so often, I actually thought that was a good idea. Let's face it, Venom looked a bit... odd when he was talking, so it only made sense to keep the really long speeches coming out of Eddie's mouth.
Saw it last night and thought it was awesome. The cameos (I'm so sure that I even spotted the kid who plays Colossus in the first crowd shot of the final battle... maybe I'm just seeing things) were excellent, probably my favorite. I turned to my friend at one point and said "Win, dude. Fucking win." Because it was. It was excellent.
I did get rather sick of the unmaskings of Spidey, Venom didn't quite bug me as much. I mean, Spiderman is all about the hidden identity, Venom's different. And seeing Topher Grace with that mouth full of teeth, awesome!
And speaking of Grace, I was really wondering how he'd manage the roll, when the major stuff that he's been in have always cast him as a geek. Well, suffice to say it was amusing and well-played, but he was definitely still the type-cast geeky guy. It worked well for the flick, but I still want to see more shades from him.
Probably the worst part about the movie was the lack of kids and teens dressed in Spidey related garb, I'm a sucker for audience participation related shananigans.
I loved it. Can't wait to see it again.
Saw the film at an 11 a.m. showing this morning and enjoyed it as best one could when surrounded by little pools of light from all the people checking their cell phones every 30 seconds. Just a few thoughts for whatever they're worth:
Is Ursula the Russian girl from across the hall the most annoying character ever? Why does she get so much screen time?
I know this is taboo to say, but is anybody else getting tired of the obligatory Stan Lee cameo? I can sort of handle the Bruce Campbell character appearances, because at least they're entertaining, but the Lee cameos pull me right out of the movie. I wish filmmakers would follow the lead of Alfred Hitchcock who realized his cameos were getting too distracting and got them over with in the first minute or two.
Wouldn't the owner of the jazz club be a bit peeved when Peter showed up again later in the film?
I thought the relationship stuff in the first hour was a bit too contrived- why wouldn't MJ have told Peter about what happens in the play for example? Oh, of course, we have to stack the deck against them to foster the rift.
Overall, SM3 was pretty damn cool, although I think it could have been even leaner and meaner with about 10-15 minutes trimmed out of it. I thought the Sandman was superbly realized, although I've never been a big Venom fan. Having said that, the filmmakers had a tough hill to climb, because once they decided to use the character, they basically had to get rid of a ton of annoying comic book continuity going all the way back to Jim Shooter's dreadful Secret Wars.
By the way, I haven't read the novelization, so I'd be very interested in the now-revised ending, unless of course it would still spoil anybody's enjoyment of the film.
Finally I agree with the previous poster about the upcoming FF2 film. I can't help thinking that where Sony pretty much gets almost everything right with their Spidey franchise, Fox really doesn't seem to have a clue with FF. They've basically now stopped Doug Jones from doing interviews about his work as the Silver Surfer, and the folks at Spectral Motion (who created the look for Jones's Abe Sapien in Hellboy) are contractually forbidden to even acknowledge that they did any work on FF2. I'm not quite sure why Fox thinks it's more sensible to convince people that the Surfer is an entirely digital creation, but these are the folks who have reportedly replaced Galactus, one of the most visually striking characters in the Marvel Universe, with a sentient clous. Needless to say, I won't exactly be waiting on line for this one.
"these are the folks who have reportedly replaced Galactus, one of the most visually striking characters in the Marvel Universe, with a sentient clous"
I presume that is a "cloud", but that better be an incorrect report. Maybe it is only thought to be a cloud. I can't see them doing the Surfer/Galactus story in one film. I would think that Rise of the Silver Surfer would end with the arrival of Galactus and then we would have another film with the battle against Galactus.
Neil
ArcLight said:
"I wasn't surprised when the first less-than-positive reviews started hitting. Really, it's part of a well received, hugely successful franchise so I wasn't surprised critics were gunning for the third movie."
That's what I thought before I saw it. It wasn't "Hulk" bad or anything, and certainly not "Blade: Trinity" bad, but overall, I thought it was very underwhelming.
Loved the first two, really wanted to like this one. I liked some bits of it (Thomas Hayden Church was great) but the dramatic scenes were flat, the action scenes weren't as good as in the last film, a solid cast was kinda squandered.
Either the script needed another rewrite or two, or the film needed 15-30 minutes cut out of it, or both, IMHO.
Worst bit: someone saying something that would have saved everyone a lot of grief two movies ago.
Best bit: The Sandman's origin scene.
Apologies for the negativity. If y'all dig the movie, cool. Just not seeing it.
Forgot to add, there were two things I did like toward the end.
One I can't describe without spoilers, but it's something we haven't really seen in a superohero movie before, certainly not in the current cycle.
The other was that the final scene was kind of a nice, understated ending. Not as great as the last shot of Spidey 2, but not a bad way to go out.
Maybe it is only thought to be a cloud. I can't see them doing the Surfer/Galactus story in one film. I would think that Rise of the Silver Surfer would end with the arrival of Galactus and then we would have another film with the battle against Galactus.
I think the feeling is that there is no way they can make a guy in a big purple suit look good. They are, of course, wrong, but I don't know that Tim Story can pull it off and they might be better off going with V'ger.
I'm hoping you're right and FF3 has the actual Big G show.
Hey PAD, could you maybe set up a CHOCK FULL O'SPOILERS thread so we could discuss some of the points we don't want to ruin for anyone who doesn't see it this week? (Though I don't know how many there are--I think everyone in my town was at the movies tonight).
You got it just right about Church; dignity. Great portrayal. Bring him back for the Sinister 6! I also liked the almost Godzilla-like score they used for Sandman's bigger moments.
Bill, how many of the Sinister Six will be around? They seem to be burning through them pretty quickly.
I know this is taboo to say, but is anybody else getting tired of the obligatory Stan Lee cameo?
C'mon, are you telling me you didn't love hearing Stan say "'Nuff said!"!? :)
I really enjoyed the movie, even for all its faults (and there were probably more in this film than the first two).
It did suffer much the same way X3 did: too many things going on, but it pulled it off much better than X3 did.
Yeah, damn, is it a freaking LAW that every Spiderman movie has to KILL the villain? Ok, Goblin had to go. Doc Ock didn't...except that they (of course) had him know who Spidey was. Though it would probably take a nuclear strike on New York City to kill everyone who knows his secret identity at this point.
So...anyway, the sinister 6. We'll have one character from this movie (identity hidden to prevent spoilers). Electro. Mysterio (played by Bruce!!!)....ok that's 3...
Kraven the Hunter...get some big UFC Russian for that one. Um...The Vulture! Sure, he's stupid as all get out but that's the point. Patrick Stewart?
And finally...the 6th member...well, I'd probably make it like the drummer for Spinal Tap, the one who keeps getting replaced when he gets killed or jailed. Scorpion, Paste Pot Pete (a thrilling 1 minute membership), Shocker, Hydro-man, Chameleon, those kind of guys. Then Carnage shows up and absorbs the other 5 and...hey! Get back here! This is pure gold!
roger Tang: On the other hand, you take away 90% of a film actor's tools with a mask. There's a definite media translation problem here which has not been satisfactory been solved...
Remember the long scene on the rooftop when Goblin is trying to convince Spidey they are special and should rule the world ("as father and son" I suppose)? One long dialog-laden scene with two guys who have static masks.
That's why they ended up having Goblin's eye lenses open up. Gotta give the actors SOME chance to emote.
I can't believe I'm only one that is upset about Uncle Ben getting shot by the Sandman. That part of the story just ruined the movie for me! Now when I watch the first Spider-Man it won't have the same impact!
As for Stan Lee cameo, it was great! My son and I always look forward to seeing his part in a Marvel movie.
I saw this movie tonight and liked it a lot. Like just about everyone's saying, Thomas Hayden Church was fantastic as Sandman. Topher Grace? I wasn't sure about him going in. But he certainly pulled it off,possibly by being eerily similar to Tobey. The Venom costume too was really awesome.
I liked Stan's cameo and loved Bruce's. However, the movie could have used two more. Eliza Dushku and Simon Cowell. The former because the fans would have loved it. Possibly put her in the restaurant with Bruce just because it would have been awesome to have them in the same scene. The latter because Kirsten Dunst simply cannot sing! I kept hoping for somebody to tell her this fact.
"Wouldn't the owner of the jazz club be a bit peeved when Peter showed up again later in the film?"
I addressed that in the book, actually.
"I thought the relationship stuff in the first hour was a bit too contrived- why wouldn't MJ have told Peter about what happens in the play for example?"
That, too.
"By the way, I haven't read the novelization,"
Kind of figured that.
"so I'd be very interested in the now-revised ending, unless of course it would still spoil anybody's enjoyment of the film."
Well, yeah, it would. Fortunately, you can always buy the novelization and find out for yourself.
PAD
"I think the feeling is that there is no way they can make a guy in a big purple suit look good."
I think "Ghostbusters" has pretty much ruined for all time the sight of a giant humanoid stomping through the streets of New York City.
PAD
"Um...The Vulture! Sure, he's stupid as all get out but that's the point. Patrick Stewart?"
Ben Kingsley, actually. My understanding is that early discussions considered the Vulture as a villain and Ben Kingsley was going to be tapped for it.
In terms of spoilers, let's wait a week, okay?
PAD
loved it man - totally groovy. from Stan & Bruce cameos to Topher pulling of being a jerk to Church's sandman to Tobey's nerdiness - great big old fun superhero movie.
Only thing that i didn't like had to do with the "inappropriate laughter in audience" bits - can i ask with out it being a spoiler - have we not got past the point in our society where a man can cry without people thinking he's a sissy?
*sigh*
ah well - hell with them - this was a great flick!
What a smashing idea! Bruce Campbell as Mysterio! Spidey 4, here we come!
Okay Peter, you sold me, I'll swing by B&N this afternoon.
And Sean, you put your finger on the one scene that drove me crazy in the first movie: a static scene between two guys with their faces covered- there's good drama! Considering the guys at ADI sculpted a gorgeous old-school Goblin mask that was ultimately never used, and Willem actually had the perfect face for the Goblin, I always thought that was one of the worst decisions ever made- until I saw the 'mask' in this film, that is.
I have to agree with you about reading the novellisation after watching the movie.
I'd read the book about two weeks ago and saw the movie this tuesday and to me it felt like the movie was missing pieces, cause I remembered loving them in the book.
Kudos on a great novellisation.
Ben Kingsley, actually. My understanding is that early discussions considered the Vulture as a villain and Ben Kingsley was going to be tapped for it.
Oh, that's nice. I could totally see that. And after being in an Uwe Boll movie ANYTHING would be a major step up. Even being the Vulture. Or Stiltman. Or the Hypno-Hustler. Or...
In terms of spoilers, let's wait a week, okay?
Fair enough, sir.
Only thing that i didn't like had to do with the "inappropriate laughter in audience" bits - can i ask with out it being a spoiler - have we not got past the point in our society where a man can cry without people thinking he's a sissy?
A good point but there were more tears than a Debra Winger movie with hobbits. After a while it doesn't register. The saddest part of the movie to me was during Sandman's origin--you'll know it when you see it. (BTW, that sequence rocked).
I think "Ghostbusters" has pretty much ruined for all time the sight of a giant humanoid stomping through the streets of New York City.
So that's what was wrong with Godzilla... :D
I hadn't seen it mentioned anywhere, but it's worth saying: once again, Rosemary Harris as Aunt May was the soul of the movie.
Saw the movie last night with my wife and kids and we all thought the movie was great.
I have to admit I was a bit nervous after seeing all the action figures at Target. I was hoping they wouldnt try and fit all those villians in the movie.
Hey Peter..Did you make a cameo?
My understanding is that early discussions considered the Vulture as a villain and Ben Kingsley was going to be tapped for it.
I hear the Vulture is a bird who goes to the sea for his salt.
OK, finally saw it myself and, well, three words: Butler ex machina.
Or maybe "Unbelievable character transformations", and I don't mean the physical kind.
But probably the best three-word summary is "Mel. O. Drama."
Also had the audience laughter at an inappropriate point. Not a good sign. And the newscasters...oy! This was a good story that barely avoided being totally ruined by the writing...
If this had been the first Spider-Man film, I probably would have dug it. But following the first two, which I thought were great, this one felt like a huge letdown.
Too much MJ, not enough Venom, and Spider-Man removing his mask every ten seconds really got to be a distraction. And three villains were really just one too many.
Also, not really a criticism of the film, but I found myself thinking that if they had it to do all over again, Topher Grace would have made a better Peter Parker than Maguire.
And the newscasters...oy! This was a good story that barely avoided being totally ruined by the writing...
I HATED the newscasters. They were terrible. How Raimi can be so great at casting most parts of his movies and then choose such awful actors...Katie Couric could beat these guys in the ratings.
Actually, I'm not a big fan of the whole "crowds of ordinary people cheer on Spidey" bits. Sandman is going all Godzilla on a building and a crowd is standing there watching it? My ass! It also takes something away from the element of danger when pre-teens don't seem to be the slightest bit in peril as 3 or 4 meta-humans are smashing real estate.
But any possibility of suspension of disbelief got hit hard when Hal Fishman came on. "Is this the end of Spiderman?" he intones. IMDB says he is one of the inspirations for The Simpson's Kent Brockman. And someone thought this was a good thing?
On the other hand, you take away 90% of a film actor's tools with a mask.
A good actor makes it work.
V For Vendetta wasn't the best adaptation in the world, but Weaving did a great job in the role. And at every turn I was just waiting for V's mask to come off... I mean, that's what they do in movies with high-paid actors, right? :)
Weaving also had the advantage of having a mask that isn't completely featureless like Maguire's. V's mask may have a fixed expression, but at least it had a face -- one that could somewhat emote with proper camerawork and lighting.
Oh, and I could easily see how the ending could have turned the schmaltz dial to 13. Good call not to.
I thought it was awful. Like, Batman and Robin awful. It was so bad in so many different ways that at times I thought they had to be consciously trying to make it as bad as possible. It made Superman III look good.
I laughed a lot, at moments that I'm pretty sure I wasn't supposed to be laughing. I laughed when Peter brushed his hair forward (that's what makes him EVIL! Rather like the two "D"s in "Fredd," except it's not SUPPOSED to be funny). I laughed even more when they showed Harry painting a friggin' still life(!), so we know he's sensitive and stuff now. I laughed when Spidey ran in front of a huge American flag. I laughed at the entire butler scene, which was just wrong in so many ways. And there were lots of other such risible moments.
And I'm sorry, but the Stan Lee cameo was just embarrassing, it was so poorly written and acted. It reminded me of an episode of Murphy Brown, in which Murphy had a cameo in a TV show, and all she had to do was walk through a door and say a line, but she couldn't even accomplish that much.
I was going to mention the hair thing. With his hair brushed forward Tobey looks like he's auditioning for a film based on the wacky misadventures of Young Adolph Hitler. And they really could've done more to make it seem like the suit was actually turning him evil instead of just an annoying jackass. Come to think of it, Superman 3 did a poor job of that as well, with Supes performing such acts of perfidy as straightening out the Leaning Tower of Piza and bowing out the Olympic Torch.
But despite all the gripes I liked it. I still think it was a really good third draft of what could have been a really great movie if they had just taken one or two more whacks at the script and, not to suck up to the host but I challenge anyone to disagree, let PAD do a final tweak on the dialogue.
Just got back from S3, and while it was okay, I was a bit perturbed by the rather contrived metaphor: Spidey = America (catch the flag bit going into the "war zone"?), Venom/Suit = Oil (the great corruptor), and Sandman is...well...a person of [the] sand(!). With perseverance (and the help of some guided missiles), American can defeat the oil-monster and reform the sand-people. Seems a bit...off to me.
Anyway, even if it is a bit ham-handed, it's still a pretty good flick. I actually liked Gwen, which was a surprise. I thought Ms. Howard and her makeup and costume people did a great job of reproducing that character look from the original books (much better than Ms. Dunst's (venerable) M.J.).
Otherwise, there's still a bit o'the black goo around (in Dr. Connor's office), so there can always be a Venom II or Carnage in the future. Worry not: symbiotes (like bad metaphors) are forever.
AD
"I laughed when Peter brushed his hair forward (that's what makes him EVIL! Rather like the two "D"s in "Fredd," except it's not SUPPOSED to be funny)"
Actually, what I was flashing on was the Broadway musical "Jekyll/Hyde." There was this whole song where Jekyll was musically going into and out of his Hyde persona, and the way he indicated which personality he was was by snapping his head to one side or the other, and this big hank of hair would either flip into his face or flip back out of it. In the latter case, he'd be Jekyll; in the former, Hyde.
PAD
Your review made me want to watch the movie. A bit odd, maybe, since it's so sarcastic/deprecating, but I find that with action movies lowering my expectations really helps me enjoy them.
The only time that didn't work was with "Arthur". *Sigh*
All in all, I enjoyed the film. I didn't enjoy it as much as the second one though.
The basic story was solid, though the plot dragged a bit at times, particularly in the begining. I thought the actors did a wonderful job, although Topher sounded a bit funny with that appliance in his mouth.
My bigest complaint was the dues ex machina near end (I could hear Adam Sandler going "Something that could have been brought to my attention yesterday!") Also, I felt Venom was just tacked on at the end and should have been saved for Spider-Man 4 (although I realize that they weren't sure there was going to be a Spider-Man 4 at the time). We really didn't get to see enough of Venom to really understand the character (We saw Brock, but not Venom). Also, I think it needed another scene with Sandman near the end(like this daughter having to be hospitalized or something) to set up his character for the climax better.
Well I saw the Midnight show Friday morning, got 3 hours sleep then went to work. Since I'm deaf and Carmike Cinemas won't captions the movies I read the novelizations first when I can.
So like Peter I knew what would happen and was looking forward to the "How". Good popcorn movie, liked the Book better.
Now after paying the guy for 3 movies how about Dr.Connors FINALLY turning into the Lizard?
I caught SM3 this morning at 9:55, and I was... underwhelmed. (Spoiler-free comments follow.) This could have been at least three movies -- one with the Sandman, one with the New Goblin Hobgoblin?), one with Venom -- and instead it's crammed into one movie that is also padded with excess melodrama. Yes, Thomas Hayden Church was the best actor, but Evil Peter Parker was weak (and the new hairstyle reminded me of Jared Leto in 30 Seconds To Mars) and the best action was the first battle. I guess Tobey Maguire has them writing maskless scenes for him more with each movie, and this was often weak: It makes sense he'd lose his mask during the final battles, but standing unmasked overlooking a crowd gathered waiting for him, to swing in from above, when almost everyone has a camera? (It reminded me a little of the train scene in the 2nd movie, where he's unmasked and all I could think was "Doesn't one of these people have a digital camera?) And Mary Jane was a big star last movie, had a bad role this movie, and she's suddenly down to waitressing?
If I were rating this from A to F, I'd give SPIDER-MAN 3 a C+.
Consider the events as we've been shown Mary Jane has seen them:
Ending the third movie as they did seems a disservice to anyone with abusive relationship experiences that leave them constantly second-guessing themselves. The Mary Jane presented in this movie seems especially vulnerable to manipulation.
I agree with the comment about the Sandman's role in Peter's origin story. Spider-Man has one of the best origin stories in comics, in that it's got a proper character arc and a very effective plot twist.
This movie changes the origin story drastically, and it's the one thing I genuinely disliked about the film.
Just heard Matt Drudge bemoan that Spider-man was such a hit and doesn't think it will even be remembered in two weeks, man needs to get out of the house. He also thinks there will be 3 more sequels. is this true? or old news?
Thoughts:
On Church: So letter-perfect as Sandman it was actually distracting; every time he got a close-up, I found myself wondering if he'd had plastic surgery to look more like Flint Marko.
On Cameos: Bruce Campbell is always welcome ("Mister Pekker?" "Parker." "Oui, that is what I said, Pekker.") Stan Lee...I could not restrain myself from muttering, "Hey, they've parachuted Stan Lee in to deliver inspirational sayings!"
On Venom: I thought he got as much time as he needed--his motivations were clearly established, his goals clearly defined, and he went right to "kill Spider-Man" quite sensibly. (What was needed was more time to explain why Sandman was working with him. "You want to kill Spider-Man, I want to kill Spider-Man." "Um...I just want money. Tell me where you're fighting Spider-Man, I'll be across town robbing a bank.") And he got the best line in the movie. "Lord, I only ask of you one thing: Kill Peter Parker." (It's in the trailers, so I don't feel guilty repeating it here.)
On Ditko: No, he wasn't the butler. The landlord is named Ditkovich as an homage, but I don't think he's interested in doing cameos. He's not quite Salinger, but he's not much of a public figure either.
Did I like it? Yes. I could think of tweaks here and there to improve it, but it was still quite good for all its flaws.
He also thinks there will be 3 more sequels. is this true? or old news?
Old news.
How many villains can know Spidey's identity and kidnap MJ in one movie? LOL
I thought one major plot point that was flawed was Harry hearing his butler say that his father was killed by the Glider....why would that clear SpideY? Couldn't Spidey have still killed Norman with the Glider? It just didn't make for a revelation that would cause Harry to change his position.
I loved the Venom and Topher in his role. He really stole the scene every time he was in it. It made me wonder what the movies would have been like if he had gotten the title role for the three movies.
I think the film suffered from trying to do too much in one movie. I think it would have done better to focus on the Venom, and Spidey fighting his dark side.
I found the Peter/MJ relationship in this movie as lacking. I found myself wanting Peter to be with Gwen. And I found MJ lip synching making me cringe twice for the movie.
I loved Thomas Hayden Church's Sandman, I just think in a movie with soo much, it ended up not hitting as a high a note as it could have otherwise. I guess as we learned with the Batman movies, and now with Spidey 3, it doesn't pay to have too many villains...
Overall, I did like the movie, but it would be my third best of the series. The action scenes were great, and I will buy it on DVD. It just didn't make me want to watch it over and over like the first two movies did....
Rob
I have to agree with the poster above that having Sandman kill Uncle Ben was an incredibly bad decision. You shouldn't change pivotal elements of a character's origin, especially this element which is so important to Spider-Man's motivation.
The guy he let get away later kills his uncle. It has to be that way.
One other thing that bugged me was the students hassling Peter in a college Physics course. I don't see why they had to include such antics in this film.
Box Office Mojo has the big numbers over at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2308&p=.htm
"Landing on the same early May slot as the original, Spider-Man 3 spun an estimated $148 million on over 10,000 screens at 4,252 locations, the biggest opening weekend and widest release ever." Plus "At the foreign box office, Spider-Man 3 captured another record: biggest overall weekend, with an estimated $227 million from 107 countries since Tuesday"
Neil
I agree with a lot of what's been said, but I really have to stress the "too packed" aspect. There was simply way too much going on. It's a shame, because I thought they were both really awesome, but either (or both) Sandman or Venom really needed to be cut out so that time could be used to properly develop whoever was left in. Focus the storytelling, people! There's ample evidence to show that superhero films need to limit their vision to only one or two villians.
I liked Gwen and I think she would have been a great counterpoint to MJ--if MJ had been done properly to begin with. Instead, the movie ended up accentuating all the ways they'd gotten her wrong in the first two films. If Dunst does anything well, it's being a flirt, but she hardly ever got to really do that. Comic MJ wouldn't have been moping about, she'd have been fighting for her man!
The Butler ex machina (great phrase!) bugged me a lot, too.
Really, though, most of the films problems could have been solved by just tightening the script by removing a villian or two. I still think 2 is the best by a pretty wide margin.
Several thoughts, having now seen it twice:
* Was there a deleted scene between Venom taking over Eddie and Venom meeting Sandman? Story structure seems to warrant a battle between just Spider-Man and Venom where Peter doesn't win (and almost loses).
* When Sandman's sandstorm sweeps through the crowd, there's a brief shot of 4 people engulfed in the sand. Deleted scene as to their fate?
* What the heck was Gwen doing in that next-to-last scene? Just accompanying her father? Made no sense.
* How does Peter's mask fly off when he gets hit in the head with a pipe? I know the mask "needs" to come off, but please.
* The butler: hmm, old geezer with access to Norman and Harry's equipment? Vulture to be?
What I'd like to see for the next two films: SM4 as Scorpion and Lizard vs. Spider-Man and Black Cat (Ursula), and SM5 as just Spider-Man vs. Kraven (maybe with a number of small villain and hero cameos).
Unless they could wrangle a Spider-Man/Human Torch team-up film.
And then SM6 gets an obvious teaser trailer: Kraven. Scorpion. Lizard. Venom. Sandman. Dr. Octopus. Spider-Man (pause) SIX.
I thought one major plot point that was flawed was Harry hearing his butler say that his father was killed by the Glider....why would that clear SpideY? Couldn't Spidey have still killed Norman with the Glider? It just didn't make for a revelation that would cause Harry to change his position.
There are also about 100 better ways they could have done it...like having the glider be able to record events and then Harry finds the recorded footage. Anything would have been better.
Posted by Greg at May 5, 2007 01:25 AM
I can't believe I'm only one that is upset about Uncle Ben getting shot by the Sandman. That part of the story just ruined the movie for me! Now when I watch the first Spider-Man it won't have the same impact!
*********************************
Posted by Ben Johnston at May 6, 2007 10:13 PM
I agree with the comment about the Sandman's role in Peter's origin story. Spider-Man has one of the best origin stories in comics, in that it's got a proper character arc and a very effective plot twist.
This movie changes the origin story drastically, and it's the one thing I genuinely disliked about the film.
****************************
Posted by George Haberberger at May 7, 2007 11:13 AM
I have to agree with the poster above that having Sandman kill Uncle Ben was an incredibly bad decision. You shouldn't change pivotal elements of a character's origin, especially this element which is so important to Spider-Man's motivation.
The guy he let get away later kills his uncle. It has to be that way.
******************************
I agree with all of the above sentiments. I've been reading this sporadically, but I'm frankly surprised it's not a more widespread criticism.
I don't agree that it invalidates the origin b/c it appears as though the thief Peter let get away either knocks into Sandman or startles him and he then accidentally shoots Uncle Ben.
The bottom line is that the Sandman wasn't going to shoot uncle Ben and it's the thief that sparks the occurence.
. . . but I've heard from so many casual fans that they didn't even get this ending. They either think the thief runs by and shoots OR that simple Sandman shot uncle Ben. It muddles the clear origin story.
Peter can probably say that if he had stopped the thief, his uncle would be alive - but, it's just a bit strained to say, "i let a thief go, that thief went on to startles another man who then shot my uncle . . ."
Yuck! I'm so surprised with the thought Raimi has put into these characters that he would tinker with a sacred part of the characters origin and motivation.
Raimi changed the webshooters b/c Raimi didn't identify with a genius that could create such a thing - yet he did this? With all of the competent writers how was this allowed to make the final cut?
Sure, you could heap more tragedy on Peter by saying he still is responsible for the events leading to his uncle's death, the thief's death, the sandman being wanted for murder, the sandman having to escape and being turned into the sandman . . . but in the end it seems lazy and convenient and tarnishes the clear origin that was never broke to begin with.
When I first saw Spidey 1 and we see Peter smugly allow the thief to run free, I felt that lump in my throat knowing he'd go on to kill Peter's uncle. Now it loses it's power a bit.
I still enjoyed part 3, but this part jsut bugs me.
I'm curious to hear PAD'S take on this.
"Was there a deleted scene between Venom taking over Eddie and Venom meeting Sandman? Story structure seems to warrant a battle between just Spider-Man and Venom where Peter doesn't win (and almost loses)."
There was a deleted scene, yes. Several, as a matter of fact. They're in the book.
"When Sandman's sandstorm sweeps through the crowd, there's a brief shot of 4 people engulfed in the sand. Deleted scene as to their fate?"
No.
"What the heck was Gwen doing in that next-to-last scene? Just accompanying her father? Made no sense."
Beats me. She never met Harry, so there was no reason for her or her father to be there. I glossed over it in the book because even I couldn't come up with anything.
PAD
Bill Mulligan:
"There are also about 100 better ways they could have done it...like having the glider be able to record events and then Harry finds the recorded footage. Anything would have been better."
Or how about, Harry realizes his love for MJ is more important than his need for vengeance? Coulda been a, y'know, character moment rather than a piece of plot machinery.
I saw it last night. What worked, worked, and what didn't, didn't.
I've read the novelization, and I am very glad that the ending was changed. I completely agree that it worked better on paper than it could have on screen.
The movie did drag, and there was too much reliance on the "not telling X what happened" thing. The "Butler ex machina" didn't work. Either Bill Mulligan or Stew Fyfe's suggestions would have worked so much better.
While I liked seeing Gwen (especially the not dying) part, and thought that Bryce Dallas Howard did well, I would have preferred seeing Debra Whitman in her place, considering what they had for her. I was ticked about Captain Stacy being basically an expository character, and the utter waste of James Cromwell in that role.
Tobey Maguire and James Franco continue to play off of each other beautifully. I liked that Krsten Dunst got to play MJ as a character in her own right, though I maintain that she would have done better if the movie MJ was more like the comic version.
Rosemary Harris and JK Simmons milked every scene to its full potential, but in both cases their first scene was their best. J.J.J. and the little girl... when I read that in the novelization, I thought "That has to be PAD's doing, and will not be in the movie." I am happy to be wrong!
There's nothing I can say about the retcon that hasn't been said. Somebody ------ up royally. Of course, Thomas Hayden Church was fantastic. I was very pleasantly surprised with Topher Grace, and also at how closely the character arc stayed to the comics. He was far more of an ass here, but Doc Ock got the opposite treatment in the second movie, so I suppose that it all balances out.
Count me in for a treatment of the Sinister Six. The suggestion of Bruce Campbell as Mysterio? It's official: nobody else can be cast. The fit is that good. Ben Kingsley as the Vulture? Ditto. Plus, with Octopus not appearing, he can take the lead as head of the Six. Sticking as closely to the original line up as possible, we have to have Electro and Kraven. Doctor Octopus is dead (he shouldn't be, but he is) and if we see Sandman again it had better be as the heroic version. The Scorpion, the Rhino, and Hydro-Man (if they stick with the comic in terms of origin) are viable alternatives. I just want the Six to be well done, if that route is gone down.
Thought this was the best of the three. Has just the right mix of humor, poignancy and the three villains. Can't see why the critics have been so harsh. Howard Stern was right about this one! (But, then again, he usually is...)
First of all, I hated the first movie. With a passion. I hated the majority of the casting, the editing, the story flow and the ending. I never watched the second one the whole way though, opting to read Peter's novel instead. I did see the majority of the second in bits and pieces, though.
I went to see the third Sunday and despite all of the same flaws of the second movie, despite short scenes that should have been longer, long scenes that shouldn't have been there, extrememly illogical conversations between characters and the same odd editing and flow as the first two, this movie managed to be entertaining the whole way through.
Chalk it up to the special effects, chalk it up to a villian that was actually decently fleshed out, chalk it up to well, the special effects. This movie was every bit as cheesy, miscast, and flawed logically as the others---but for some reason it worked.
Kudos to everyone who worked on the Sandman, I hope they make a good chunk of the record breaking box office, they deserve it.
I'm crossing my fingers Tobey and Dunst won't return for a fourth. And I'm equally crossing my fingers that Bryce Dallas Howard returns in a bigger role. And for Peter Parker's sake can we get the Lizard finally? And also, would a spin off movie: J Jonah Jameson: Life at the Daily Bugle be so much to ask?
Since we've moved on to spoilers...
I also thought that the butler's revelation (incidentally, did he go to the same butlering school as Batman's Alfred? They get access to illegal and confidential information, then do nothing about it) that the glider "proved" that the Green Goblin killed himself. As far as he knew, Spider-Man could have stabbed him with it. (Ironically, this is *exactly* how Venom (sorta the second Spider-Man) killed the New Goblin (the 2nd Green Goblin.))
What happened to Spider-Man's spider-sense? I can sorta buy them going with Venom's immunity to it (and forgetting to mention this in the movie), but what about when the New Goblin grabs Peter at the start of the movie?
Based on the end, it looks like Spider-Man will allow any villain with a sick kid to leave, regardless of how much property damage that villain did, with no assurance the villain won't keep stealing, or even if the villain helped kidnap Mary Jane and put her in a very dangerous trap.
Based on the end, it looks like Spider-Man will allow any villain with a sick kid to leave, regardless of how much property damage that villain did, with no assurance the villain won't keep stealing, or even if the villain helped kidnap Mary Jane and put her in a very dangerous trap.
They could include in the sequel (or as a sequel) Sandman participating in a customized work-release program by acting as the sole firefighter for the entire region, and generally acting as a Gulliver to the Lilliput of New York City. He could also raise money for his daughter by taking donations through a reformed-supervillain weblog/webcam, or maybe a reality TV show/telethon situation if it plays better as a movie. Church could totally play up the comedy in a "Rise of the Sandman" storyline.
Oh, dude, they could make it a supervillain version of "Napoleon Dynomite," where they just do funny Sandman-stuff until Flint saves Peter's disasterous mayoral campaign ("Vote for Parker") with his disco dance. Teresa Russell could come back with a single pig-tail.
***ALERT*****ALERT****
Must see for Thomas Hayden Church fan's and fan's of superhero parodies...he starred in a little direct to DVD movie called ****The Specials*** (also starring Rob Lowe), a hilarious parody in the tradition of the Tick and Seinfeld. I think it came out about 2001 (maybe earlier). I watched it once and never forgot it (own the DVD)
"Really, it's part of a well received, hugely successful franchise so I wasn't surprised critics were gunning for the third movie."
I doubt they were gunning for it. They wouldn't have been so positive about the first film -- and even more so for the second -- unless they didn't like it. All in all, it was an OK film.
Favorite commentary on SM3, courtesy of Todd Alcott (MINOR SPOILERS):
I get that some alien goo from outer space, apropos of nothing, lands mere feet away from the protagonist. I get it.
I get that an escaped convict, the man who killed the protagonist's uncle, stumbles into an open-air particle-accelerator thing, and that he thus gets the ability to commune with and manipulate sand. I totally buy it. I get that a bump on the head is guaranteed to give another antagonist amnesia just when the protagonist most needs it to happen. I get that in a city of eight million people, the protagonist and another antagonist just happen to be in the same church bell-tower at the same time, so that alien goo can drip from one to the other. I get all that.
What I don't get is the career of Mary Jane Watson.
In Spider-Man 2, Mary Jane was, like, a super-model or something and the celebrated star of The Importance of Being Earnest Off-Broadway. Cool. And at the beginning of Spider-Man 3, she's the third lead in a new musical on Broadway. Also cool.
Okay. So, opening night doesn't go well, MJ gets panned, and the next day is fired from the show without notice. Just walks into the theater to find she's been replaced. Someone mutters something about how she should have called her agent and she dashes out of the theater. Next thing we know, she's a singing waitress in a -- gasp -- jazz bar.
1. How did the producers of the Broadway show get all the way through rehearsals and up to opening night without realizing that their third lead couldn't sing? Two possible answers: MJ is so famous as a model/actress that they didn't care that she couldn't sing, or else she has extremely powerful representation. If she's so freaking famous that she gets cast in a Broadway show with no singing talent, she's famous enough to sell out her run without good reviews. Broadway producers don't care if the show stinks, they care about if there are butts in the seats. End of story. You think Madonna got cast in Speed-the-Plow because of her acting talent?
2. How did MJ get through opening night and the next day without calling her agent? What kind of Broadway star is she? I've done shows with actors who call their agents onstage, during rehearsals.
3. What kind of agent is her agent? How could an agent have the power to cast a non-singer in a major role on Broadway but not have the brains to call his client when she gets unceremoniously canned from the show?
4. Why is she so upset about being fired? She must have had a pay-or-play contract, you don't get to be third lead on Broadway without a decent contract -- she should just take a few weeks, on the show's dime, to absorb the impact of her bad reviews and figure out what she wants to do next. But no, first thing, she dumps her boyfriend, takes up with his arch-enemy and starts working as a singing waitress in a jazz bar. If memory serves, supermodel + Off-Broadway trimuph + Broadway singing failure does not = singing waitress. Where is the indie feature co-starring James urbaniak? Where are the modeling gigs to fall back on? What did she do with all the money from the perfume ads? She sure didn't spend it on furniture -- her crummy studio apartment looks like it was furnished by Goodwill. Does MJ have a drug problem?
5. And while we're at it, who makes the money from all the Spider-Man merchandise on display throughout the movie? We see that Peter Parker doesn't have any money. And yet, one of the major plot-points is that NYC is flooded with Spider-Man merchandise. Costumes, t-shirts, dolls, posters, everything. Who's making all that merchandise, and who is profiting from its sale? Why doesn't Spider-Man do anything to control the dissemination of his image? Pirate merchandisers are making a killing off him while he lives in a studio apartment with a broken door. And, Spider-Man is on the cover of every newspaper and magazine -- how did he pose for all those covers? Are those all photos by Peter Parker? If so, why does he not get any money for them? What is wrong with these people?
I don't know if it was only because I sat in the forth row of the movie theater, but the fight seen were to jumpy. In a way this was the problem with the whole movie, too jumpy, too jarring, too much over the top. The movie jumped between plotlines, scenes, underdeveloped characters, rough character development.
It's a shame, because the lead actors have proved themselves capable of subtlety.
Micha: but the fight seen were to jumpy.
I agree. I enjoyed the fight scenes, but found them really too fast and difficult to follow to really get the thrill I'd like to have had.
The first one, when Harry scoops Peter of his moped and they head down the narrow alley, for example. I want to see Spidey moving as only he can. Fast, sure. But not so fast that I can't eally tell what he's doing, or that it just seems to be swinging.
Twisting around a section of falling wall and diving thru the crane, all .5 seconds of it, was cool. Alas, too little of that.
Actually, what I really did like was the Harry/Peter team at the end, where they were working perfectly together. One holding out a hand just as the other needs something to grab, and then vice versa. It was the seemless flow involving multiple people that a was really missing from the big Jedi fight in Attack of the Clones.
My thoughts on Spider-Man 3:
This movie fills me with frustration. I went to see it on Sunday. I had high expectations. I loved the first Spidey flick, *really* loved the second, and despite a certain amount of trepidation (Why mess with the original mythos?), I went into the third with a positive attitude.
I felt like I was on a first date with a girl who'd been really built up by my friends. We'd talked on the phone, and hit it off. (This isn't a real incident in my life, but just go with me here...) We go to a restaurant. Conversation's great. As she's talking, though, I notice she's making lots of gross smacking and chewing noises while she eats. No no no, I tell myself, it's okay. This is still the same girl you spoke with so well on the phone.
Soon after, we're sitting next to each other, and I notice a certain cloying odor, and it's not coming from me. It's okay, though, I tell myself, because she's still the same person I got on so well with, and look what a great time we are having! And then at the end of the date, we go for the good-night kiss ... and as she leans forward, I'm blasted with the smell of a vulture's partially-mastocated carrion. Eyes watering, I tell myself, "It's okay, we had a great time.." But I find it's harder and harder to convince myself of the truth. She has lots of promise, and with a little cleanup she'd be great ... but as is ... yikes!
Okay, shallow example, I know. The thing is, that's how I felt about Spider-Man 3. Unfortunately for Spidey, my date and I have a second chance, many chances, to improve things. Either I can adapt to poor hygiene, or we can discuss and make things work. Not so with the movie. It is what it is. It ain't changin' for nobody, unless a director's cut DVD were to be made, and I don't think even that would help; the problems are intrinsic to the story.
I won't go into spoilers unless and until it's sanctioned by the group as a whole, but suffice it to say that as fun as this movie is, there are some plot points that just didn't work for me, no matter how much I tried to rationalize them afterward. And trust me, I so wanted to love this movie. I spent the last few days revisiting it in my head, examining my issues with the plot from alternate angles, trying to make the story work for me. But every time I thought I'd convinced myself that it was totally awesome, the lingering scent of partially-mastocated
carrion wafted from my mind's nose, and I just couldn't accept it.
As it stands, the movie is good. It's fun. Its action sequences are thrilling.
The thing is, it should've been great. It ought to have caused my heart to race. The action sequences should've made my jaw drop, not because of the greatness of the effects (We have that in abundance here!), but because of the character investments that were made throughout the story leading up to those sequences. Am I being hard on the movie? You bet. Given the previous two installments, we know what these filmmakers are capable of giving to us. It's as if Jimmy Neutron decided, rather than putting all the work necessary into building a super-turbo-charged deluxe time machine, he simply went for building an incredibly fancy, super-turbocharged deluxe clock instead.
Here's hoping for better things to come from the rest of the summer.
"It is what it is. It ain't changin' for nobody."
I often rewrite movies in my mind. It can't completely solve the disappointed with a movie that should have been better, but it is very satisfying to remeber movies not only the way they were, but the way they could have been.
By the time I watched Revenge of the Sith I already had such a clear idea not only of how the first two movies could have been done, but pretty detailed ideas for the 3rd movie, that I was actually rewriting it while watching it. It lessened the disappointment.
I wanted to love this movie, I really did, but the more I mull it over, the more I think it was merely "okay." I'll save most of my comments for the upcoming spoiler-filled thread, but it was sad to see it fall prey to the bane of superhero sequels, "Too many villains."
-Rex Hondo-
What do you get when you have two directors working on a movie at the same time? SM3.
So, OK, it really was just one, but it honestly felt like Raimi at the top of his form for the segments involving the supers, including the 'birth' of the Sandman, and some mediocre hack dealing with all the rest. The timing, editing, characterizations were often so bad that it made me wish I was wearing a watch so that I could look at it.
THC as Sandman was nigh-on perfect. At the opposite end, Dunst was her worst yet as MJ. She completely lacks the inner 'fire' and dazzling persona of the comics one. And isn't someone going to start wondering about this individual always getting involved in some deadly predicament involving one of Spidey's foes? If Dunst does quit the Spider-man franchise, I won't miss her, unless they somehow come up with someone even worse. Which is hard to imagine.
Tobey McGuire is still fine as Peter, but they HAVE GOT to start making him more grown up. That shy, tongue-tied bit was cute when he was a high school junior. But it's getting old. Time for Peter to develop more of a spine.
And that WAS one of the fine bits of the film where we see what Spidey would be like if he didn't hold back for fear of hurting someone. As expected, he'd be truly scary.
Just saw it (I feel like the last guy on Earth who has - is anyone still reading this thread?) My impressions (which are clearly shared by some previous posters):
Too long! Too many baddies! 20 minutes should have been trimmed. In fact, I boldly suggest they should have given Sandman his own film, either before or after this one. Flint Marko, Eddie Brock, Harry Osborn, Peter/MJ/Gwen all have compelling storylines - but none of them were done justice.
James Cromwell was utterly wasted.
What kind of particle physics experiment is performed in the dead of night with only a chain link fence for security? Couldn't Marko have gotten his money by suing Generic Science Company?
The writers forgot about the Spider Sense, didn't they?
Although I felt it ran long, I also think a couple of additional scenes were needed, including the initial Venom/Sandman meeting that PAD alluded to...
Bryce Dallas Howard is dead sexy. Frankly, I would have told Mary Jane to f*** off and go sling hash.
I didn't mind the Marko/Uncle Ben revision.
Bruce Campbell as Mysterio must happen. IT MUST, I tell you! Hell, they could even retcon his multiple appearances in the series as some sort of illusion-making thingie.
A lot of the fight scenes were so fast, with so much going on, that I couldn't really enjoy them - I really appreciated when they went to slow motion for portions of the action sequences.
That is all.
the character I missed the the most in this movie was Spiderman. The villain fighting, web slinging (in speeds visible to the human eye), wall crawling, bantering super hero who wears a mask. He had many of his scenes stolen by the maskless Toby Mcguire.
Didn't like Kirsten Dunst as Mary Jane either. She adds little to the character. Isn't it ironic that they had a blond play a readhead and a readhead play a blond?
Now I'm interested in seeing what ending was originally planned. :) But I still don't like the current ending too much. A bit too quick and click. And in my opinion, they didn't have to do that to Harry. That was cheese for the screen more than plot to me. Could have been more clever and given more options for him. :)
Sandman battling Spidey at the end just seemed out there considering what he did later. We know he's a sympathetic villain but somehow it seemed a bit too sudden and rushed to tie up things right after a battle that focused more on eradicating Venom than really fighting Sandman. Ah, well.
Venom did not get enough screen time.
And I agree with Michael that Cromwell was wasted. Even his holographic stint in I, Robot was better than this. :) At least the hologram had a sense of humor. ^^
Michael, Mysterio sounds like a great idea! Love to see Campbell pull off that. I can just imagine a mist-enshrouded helmet that would clear mystically at times to show Campbells face talking. Maybe even have a disembodied head effect. ;p