Spider-Man 3: I don't get it...

[slackerinabox]

I resisted seeing Spider-Man 3 on opening day due to all the negative reviews by friends and critics. "Everyone cried... it was so corny.." The reviews were dreadful. But I saw it last night and really, really enjoyed it. Sure, people cried - but I'd cry if a) my relative gave me their engagement ring, my best friend was dying, or the love of my life dumped me. How is that considered a negative? Also, the first two movies were corny too. The Spider-man movies are from a "golly-gee!" reality, and that was always part of the charm. Why bash that now?

Over-all, i thought it was the 3rd best in the trilogy, after Parts 2 and 1, but don't understand all of the hate it's getting. George Lucas even said in an interview that it was a silly movie - this from the director of The Phantom Menace! What's the deal?

 

[slackerinabox]

I will say that it was too long and tried to cram in too much. It wasn't a brilliant movie, i'm just confused about all the hate.

 

[RaiderJ]

Venom - no screen time, and not very indimidating
Sandman - lame
Mary Jane - whiny
Peter - did kick enough ass
Gwen - pointless (but pretty)

Too long too. Nothing coherant

 

[Looney]

OMG they cried like 7-8 times throughout the movie. He even cried for Sandman, and then the two of them cried for his pale... and his quivering lips was just hilarious.

But that wasn't all that was wrong with the movie. Bernard coming out of nowhere after 2 years to finally tell him that he's known his father was a psychopath, and so was he and he's been trying to kill his best friend... and then says 'i loved your father... and i loved you', was just hilarious.

There were just so many things wrong with this movie. I had a good audience though, and we all a good laugh, so it wasn't a waste of money, but it's a huge departure from the first 2. I actually had to come look up on IMDb to see whether it was the same director as the first 2.

 

[irishScott]

A non YAGT from freedomsbeat?

*Universe Asplodes*

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: irishScott
A non YAGT from freedomsbeat?

*Universe Asplodes*

sigh, i haven't posted on in over 2 months..

 

[RandomFool]

I didn't understand all the negative reviews either. My guess is they're because people were expecting too much and it wasn't better than the first two. Did anyone think the Sandman was a completely uneeded and Venom should have had a larger part?

 

[xanis]

Bottom line, there was way too much crap crammed in to the movie. I understand that they wanted to go along with the storyline from the comics, but it was hard to keep focused. The worst part of the movie, IMO, was the "Emo Spider Man" thing when the movie turned into a chick flick. Granted, most of the fight scenes were cool, but I disliked the movie as a whole.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Looney
OMG they cried like 7-8 times throughout the movie. He even cried for Sandman, and then the two of them cried for his pale... and his quivering lips was just hilarious.

But that wasn't all that was wrong with the movie. Bernard coming out of nowhere after 2 years to finally tell him that he's known his father was a psychopath, and so was he and he's been trying to kill his best friend... and then says 'i loved your father... and i loved you', was just hilarious.

There were just so many things wrong with this movie. I had a good audience though, and we all a good laugh, so it wasn't a waste of money, but it's a huge departure from the first 2. I actually had to come look up on IMDb to see whether it was the same director as the first 2.

I always thought about Spider-Man as the post-modern super hero. Even the color palette is inspired by Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstien (though he's inspired by the comic style of the 50s/60s). Crying super-heroes seems to be a part of that, even since part 1 to me. He wasn't a bad-ass, he was kinda a sissy boy who tried to be a man. I don't know, aside from the sandman moment (which i agree was over the top), I didn't think the crying was out of place.

The butler thing WAS a plot contrivance - I agree with you 100% Why didn't he say this sooner? I wish that scene was edited out but I have a big feeling tested audiences didn't get Harry's transformation so they had to throw that it - it was totally pointless and silly. Just showing him think about peter and mary jane and putting his anger aside would have been more powerful, but it was talking to a dumb audience (or an audience the writer thought was dumb).

Other cheesy moments seemed to be part of the over-the-top/operatic spider-man world where a boy rides a scooter and says "Golly Gee, Mary Jane!" or "Go Get em, tiger!" I agree, there was lazy writing in it, but i thought the direction was top-notch and honestly think Sam Raimi's getting some undeserved smearing due to the movie.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: RandomFool
I didn't understand all the negative reviews either. My guess is they're because people were expecting too much and it wasn't better than the first two. Did anyone think the Sandman was a completely uneeded and Venom should have had a larger part?

Not a fan-boy, but Sam Raimi HATED venom as a character and threw him in due to studio pressure. The story was originally supposed to focus on the sandman.

I'm not saying that justifies anything, but i think venom was secondary to the plot - the plot was about Peter seeing his dark side while his friend found the light.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Xanis
Bottom line, there was way too much crap crammed in to the movie. I understand that they wanted to go along with the storyline from the comics, but it was hard to keep focused. The worst part of the movie, IMO, was the "Emo Spider Man" thing when the movie turned into a chick flick. Granted, most of the fight scenes were cool, but I disliked the movie as a whole.

I thought part of the appeal of the first two is that they WERE chick flicks. and guy flicks too.. but there was a lot of emotional stuff in the first 2.

And his emo/goth thing - that was poking fun at loser goth kids, and i can't disagree with that

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: RandomFool
I didn't understand all the negative reviews either. My guess is they're because people were expecting too much and it wasn't better than the first two. Did anyone think the Sandman was a completely uneeded and Venom should have had a larger part?

Not a fan-boy, but Sam Raimi HATED venom as a character and threw him in due to studio pressure. The story was originally supposed to focus on the sandman.

I'm not saying that justifies anything, but i think venom was secondary to the plot - the plot was about Peter seeing his dark side while his friend found the light.

I remember reading that somewhere awhile back. I thought Harry and Peter was really well done as was the whole Peter seeing his dark side and Venom was setup really well but failed to really deliver. While Sandman was sorta just there to give Peter a reason to be mean, he wasn't really a bad guy. It's interesting that he was originally the focus of the movie.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I resisted seeing Spider-Man 3 on opening day due to all the negative reviews by friends and critics. "Everyone cried... it was so corny.." The reviews were dreadful. But I saw it last night and really, really enjoyed it. Sure, people cried - but I'd cry if a) my relative gave me their engagement ring, my best friend was dying, or the love of my life dumped me. How is that considered a negative? Also, the first two movies were corny too. The Spider-man movies are from a "golly-gee!" reality, and that was always part of the charm. Why bash that now?

Over-all, i thought it was the 3rd best in the trilogy, after Parts 2 and 1, but don't understand all of the hate it's getting. George Lucas even said in an interview that it was a silly movie - this from the director of The Phantom Menace! What's the deal?

It's silly because that's the style Spiderman has always carried.

I think, overall, it was a good movie but the other two topped it. But, as far as villains go, it was by far my favorite. Looking forward to Venom in 4 (yes there will be a venom, or maybe skip Venom and go straight for Carnage). And yes, there will likely be something from the Venom symbiote, quite possibly another Venom, just not Brock, which disappoints me because I really liked how Topher Grace played the role.
Venom can't be gone because its basically Spiderman's biggest enemy. But it could get too played out in film if they keep using the same characters. It should be expected Hob-Goblin will appear in one of the next 3 movies, and Venom/Carnage will hopefully reappear.
hmm

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: RandomFool
I didn't understand all the negative reviews either. My guess is they're because people were expecting too much and it wasn't better than the first two. Did anyone think the Sandman was a completely uneeded and Venom should have had a larger part?

Not a fan-boy, but Sam Raimi HATED venom as a character and threw him in due to studio pressure. The story was originally supposed to focus on the sandman.

I'm not saying that justifies anything, but i think venom was secondary to the plot - the plot was about Peter seeing his dark side while his friend found the light.

Why would he need to kow-tow to the studio? He brought them billions worth with the first 2 movie, i would think if anything, they would be bowing to him and letting him get away with pretty much anything he wanted. The problem with multiple series is usually the director gets tired of it and steps away, and the new director takes it in a completely different direction. That's why sequels normally suck. But to have the same director for 3 movies, i would think the studios would be ecstatic and let him do it his way... just like he did the first 2, and they turned out great blockbusters.

 

[Gibson486]

There were high expectations that it did not meet.....that kind off pissed off alot of people and to some it warrented a bad review.

 

[lokiju]

I think Sandman should have been cut out totally and Venom the main villain.

I like the movie but growing up reading the comics, I was very disappointed about Venom being a almost side note.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212

Originally posted by: RandomFool
I didn't understand all the negative reviews either. My guess is they're because people were expecting too much and it wasn't better than the first two. Did anyone think the Sandman was a completely uneeded and Venom should have had a larger part?

Not a fan-boy, but Sam Raimi HATED venom as a character and threw him in due to studio pressure. The story was originally supposed to focus on the sandman.

I'm not saying that justifies anything, but i think venom was secondary to the plot - the plot was about Peter seeing his dark side while his friend found the light.

Why would he need to kow-tow to the studio? He brought them billions worth with the first 2 movie, i would think if anything, they would be bowing to him and letting him get away with pretty much anything he wanted. The problem with multiple series is usually the director gets tired of it and steps away, and the new director takes it in a completely different direction. That's why sequels normally suck. But to have the same director for 3 movies, i would think the studios would be ecstatic and let him do it his way... just like he did the first 2, and they turned out great blockbusters.

thats the problem though. he may want to do it his way, and the studio may want him to, but he will alienate a lot of fans if he completely ignores Spiderman's biggest enemy: the venom symbiote. Venom and Carnage are hellish, but what will be good for the movie series is if they DO bring in Carnage, and let Venom and Spiderman team up for half a movie as they battle Carnage and then go back to wanting to kill eachother. The Lizard would be great to mix in there. It will appeal to regular movie goers as being a great story, as when you mix those stories together its got a great pull, and fans of the comics will be ecstatic. Who else are they going to? Hydroman? Kingpin? Other enemies that really aren't that strong of a role in the overall Spiderman story?

 

[Luthien]

team up daredevil and spiderman

Anyhow the movie was dissapointing def. tried to accomplish too much. Most would have rather had a movie shorter and more focused. Spiderman 3 is two movies squished into one, maybe even three.

It could be that the director wanted to end spiderman 3 in a way that would allow him to replace the main cast for the subsequent films.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: lokiju
I think Sandman should have been cut out totally and Venom the main villain.

I like the movie but growing up reading the comics, I was very disappointed about Venom being a almost side note.

yeah, that is the one thing that really knocked the movie down. It seems that Rami just pissed all over it and said "f u" to the producers after they told him to put Venom in. I think having Venom as the main villian would have been enough to fuel the entire movie.

 

[Eug Wanker]

Well, I hated that movie. I thought the story was convoluted and simplistic at the same time. I thought the fighting looked really, really cheesy (esp. the flying snowboard). I though the crying scenes were totally misplaced. I thought both Sandman and Venom were both whiney. I thought Harry's forced revelation and actions made no sense. I thought Venom was totally irrelevant to the movie. I thought the acting was mediocre. Etc.

YMMV.

P.S. I went into the movie with low expectations, and the movie still failed to meet them.