Spider-Man 3 Thread

I liked the parts with emo-peter. That whole sequence was soooo weird, and had Rami's fingerprints all over it. It was really nice to see him not get lost under all of the EFX and money.

And this was Bruce Campbell's best cameo, by far, though I do wish Rami would give the guy a bigger part.

I am getting a little tired of EVERY villain being created via science accident. I guess the sim suit came from space, but still...

The sandman creation sequence was quite beautiful I thought.
 
FilmBoy77 said:
I say that to say this: how do we know some of the big boys arent padding their pockets? :)
Click to expand...

To quote David Mamet; "The dirty little secret about the film business is that all movies make money, it just depends on how close to the source of the money you are."
 
I'm going to throw this in real quick.

Sandman and New Goblin - Cool conflicted villain types that provided cool action sequences, VFX, etc. But, shouldn't have been in the movie.

The movie should've developed and worked with one villain, VENOM. Unfortunately, Venom was perhaps the the weakest character in the film and was only up there for like 15 minutes. The symbiote and it's relationship with Parker was pointless. The whole Dark Spiderman/Peter Parker was not that interesting to me (although funny comic relief).

VENOM is enough bad for a whole movie.
 
Alright, I always feel better after writing some kind of public review of a movie I've anticipated for a while, so here goes.

Overall I enjoyed the film and had a great time. There was even some drama/action before the film even started; some punk kids were in someone's seat and got hauled out by the bouncers; it was pretty entertaining to see the bouncers totally own them. Oh yeah, and the Warriors owned Dallas for the win. Anyways.

The film definitely had Rami's fingerprints, as someone mentioned earlier. I am actually split in two ways with the film; part of me respects the film as a risky attempt to put many different styles into one movie; and the other part of me is disappoined with the innacuracies and the writing problems.

Honestly, I agree that there was simply too much material in here for 2.5 hours; each villain could have been their own movie. Personally I would have liked to see Harry stay as the main villain until the end obviously because of he and Peter's developing conflict, and then maybe have them INTRODUCE Eddie Brock and Venom if they are indeed doing a 4th installment. The Sandman's story seemed overly contrived to me, and almost like a desperate attempt to add another emotional villain who of course has a personal connection with Peter Parker, when they already had plenty with the on going conflict with Harry, and Brock now. Anyone who disliked the film probably would agree that there was just too much which amounted to what many are calling a mess in the final act.
Alot of the time I was asking myself "Is this the same character we've come to know from the last two films or is this just rushed writing here?" Unfortunately it seemed to be the latter in most cases to me.

But I still really enjoyed the film overall and had a great time, and have decided to see it again (not IMAX this time). I think Rami has accomplished something unique with Spidey 3, in that he was able to put ALOT of stuff in there that I certainly didn't expect; the whole emo-Peter thing was a hysterical poke at teenage culture especially in America. The jazz scene was also fun for me, because who seriously expected to see something as different as that in the movie? And I've read alot of qualms about Dunst's singing...I actually thught she did really good if that was in fact her. The Buce Campbell cameo was perfect; you could sense it was going to be him immediately; props to Rami and Maguire for that shot of Peter hesitantly walking up to the desk with that "Here we go again" face. As much as I wanted to see the film be a solid 3rd installment with everything I personally wanted to see, I think it would have been less entertaining without all the new things Rami put into it. And the omelete making-twist scene was another thing that had me thinking "what movie am I watching?". So as much as I wanted to see a solid Spiderman 3 that summed up the trilogy with all the quesitons answered, I have to say I respect Rami's play with genres and style in this film, and recommend it to all of us aspiring movie makers. You will love it or hate it, or maybe like me, see its flaws and its good points, and take it as it is and have a good time.
 
weekend box office numbers in ...

$148 MILLION for Spidey 3.

Bet it does a Matrix Revolutions and takes a dive the 2nd weekend. I thought it was good, but not good enough to support those numbers.
 
I just saw it for a second time.

Better than the first, inferior to the second.

I was right the first time: too much was going on.

But I'm not here to bash it. It's a comic-book movie. I really don't like comics alll that well, and like comic-book movies even less. Despite that, I had a hell of a good time.

Bryce Dallas Howard was perfectly cast as Gwen Stacy. Man, she is surprisingly beautiful as a blonde.

1752.jpg


Bruce Cambell was brilliant, as usual.

This was the funniest installment yet. Raimi has a niche for comedy in non comedy genre films. He really shines here.

Emo Don Juan- uh I mean, Peter Parker was cool. I liked his little jig.

They really need to kill off Dunst though. I'm tired of her.

Venom got royally screwed. Maybe they can find some way to bring him back.

CGI was great.

I'm pleased.
 
Bruce Campbell aside, it was the most expensive piece of crap ever made.

I am too nauseous to elaborate
 
Just saw it tonight. WHAT A MESS! It doesn't matter though because it's going to make ALOT of money.
 
yep a mess. Venom was horrible, EMO Peter was horrible, all the tear jerker moments were horrible, way to much goin on for one movie. I was so looking forward to Venom too.
 
I think the Spidey series is one of the better comic book movies (not much of a compliment, I know), but the thing that has always stuck in my craw about it as Kirsten Dunst. I won't go so far as to say she is a bad actress, but it is definitely bad casting. M.J. in the comics is a bad-ass sex-bomb. It's not about her looks (although KD is not my taste), as much as her attitude. I read spidey for years in the '70s and '80s, and after Gwen died (don't get me started on them skipping over Gwen as Peter's squeeze and jumping to M.J.) and Petey and M.J. hooked up, she was more a man than he was. SHe was confident and assured. She wasn't some whiney, "no it's all about me" loser. M.J. Had her insecurities too, but she'd kick Petey in the nads before she'd get all weepy. She purred like GTO when she called him "Tiger" Dunst's co star in Bring it on (Eliza Dushku) is closer to the MJ attitude.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I think the Spidey series is one of the better comic book movies (not much of a compliment, I know), but the thing that has always stuck in my craw about it as Kirsten Dunst. I won't go so far as to say she is a bad actress, but it is definitely bad casting. M.J. in the comics is a bad-ass sex-bomb. It's not about her looks (although KD is not my taste), as much as her attitude. I read spidey for years in the '70s and '80s, and after Gwen died (don't get me started on them skipping over Gwen as Peter's squeeze and jumping to M.J.) and Petey and M.J. hooked up, she was more a man than he was. SHe was confident and assured. She wasn't some whiney, "no it's all about me" loser. M.J. Had her insecurities too, but she'd kick Petey in the nads before she'd get all weepy. She purred like GTO when she called him "Tiger" Dunst's co star in Bring it on (Eliza Dushku) is closer to the MJ attitude.
Click to expand...

true true
 
Well my experience was different. I saw it in IMAX friday for my first IMAX experience (for a movie at least, not a docu IMAX thing).

First, IMAX sucked! where I was sitting I couldn't see the whole screen and had to keep panning my head with the action.

Beyond that, this movie just bored me and was kinda lame. I liked the first two but sat there bored and wanting this to end... then again, my neck also hurt from that stupid curved roof.

Either way, I wasn't a fan of it.
 
Note to the editors of Spider-Man 3; Did we really need to see the scene of Harry and MJ doing the twist while cooking omelets? I mean really?

They could have cut 25 minutes out of this thing and still had the same movie.
 
Jeremy Ordan said:
Well my experience was different. I saw it in IMAX friday for my first IMAX experience (for a movie at least, not a docu IMAX thing).

First, IMAX sucked! where I was sitting I couldn't see the whole screen and had to keep panning my head with the action.
Click to expand...

Although it may seem counter-intuitive, IMAX looks best sitting in the back row. The screen is so massive you still get a sense of scale while being able to see all the action. And technically I think the large format theaters with curved dome screens are OMNIMAX. The IMAX theatres I go to have flat screens.
 
Saw it tonight, and suprisingly... I liked it! MUCH better than the first or second film... it's not Batman Begins, or the original X-Men, but it was a fun enjoyable film. :)
 
It was my first IMAX experience as well and I too was not impressed with the IMAX portion. It was just ... bigger. Nothing else. I'll be sticking with regular theaters from now on. And my feet weren't permanently adhesed to the floor by old soda. What's with that? Prying myself away in 90% of the experience for me!

Anyway, the movie. Not as good as 1 or 2, but it was pretty good. I'm surprised that so many people say it was a mess. I thought they juggled what they had pretty well. If the movie had changed it would have required a complete rewrite of the script (I know, most people probably wouldn't have minded that). It seemed that they sacrificed action for character development in some cases which I certainly didn't expect. Everyone wanted an all Venom all the time film, but in order to get the characters to the point where Venom could appear ... well, that's what took so long, and that's probably the only reason that Sandman was included. So there would be enough story time to develop the characters. Honestly if you were going to do it right then you would have had the setup of the black suit in one film and then Venom all out in the next film (but is there any doubt that Venom is still alive? I walked out of the theater with some friends and one of them actually said "It's too bad they killed Venom so soon" and I just said "Did you see the film we just watched?" I then had to explain why Venom was still alive). And if you were going to tell the Venom story true to the comic book then by about Spider-Man 26 then you'd see the events that took place in Spider-Man 3. My guess is that once you see Spider-Man 4 (and the jury is out on whether I will or not) then Spider-Man 3 will look more like a Peter Parker redemption film with just the setup for Venom and 4 will be all Venom all the time.

But I will grant that they could have cut at least twenty-seven close ups of Toby McGuire starting to cry. Towards the end my wife leaned over to me and said "Haven't they used that shot?" :)
 
i know i venom had the same thing simular happen to him in spiderman series...... so it is possible.... next ideas for four:

Venom, Carnage, Lizard or Clone saga; then the return of Norman Osborne

the only shot i notice get used alot was the sandman looking at his daughters jecklace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top