criterionforum.org

The Invunche wrote:Reminds me of Joker killing Batman's parents in Burton's movie. You'd think Lucas wrote it.

That is how I felt throughout the film, like Lucas wrote the script. The dialogue between Peter and MJ was so bad and Dunst acting only made it worse. A lot of stuff didn't make sense for storyline purposes and canon revisions for my liking.

I love Spider-Man since I was a little kid and the Gwen Stacy/Green Goblin/spider-Man storyline is on my top 5 favorite story archs and this movie completely blew it. Spider-Man 3 almost fell into the Batman Forever territory, where there are too many characters and too many stories to be told for a 2.5 hour film. Venom, although being very well played by Grace, could have been better saved for a 4th film. The story should have focused on Peter/MJ/Harry/Gwen problems with the Sandman thrown in for the action, without the nonsense revisionist "I killed Ben Parker" story.

The bright spot for me was seeing Bryce Dallas Howard. =P~ She looked stunningly beautiful and played very well, although briefly, the role of Gwen Stacy. She has become my new actress crush. i think I mentioned this before, but I find incredibly ironic, that Howard, a natural redhead and a perfect fit for MJ, dyed her hair blonde, while Dunst, a natural blonde, had her hair dyed red and has been miscast in that role since day 1.

Just saw it. I thought it was overly long when it didn't have to be, kind of along the lines of King Kong. I thought the second film was much tighter and more graceful in its plot design. Here's it's very much sprawled out and the ending felt mechanical with M.J. once again being a damsel in distress... I actually can't believe it's the most expensive movie ever made, but I can't fault Sony for giving it everything they could... I wonder how much it will drop off the second weekend at the box office.

If Peter Parker married Parker Posey she'd be Parker Parker.

What an awful, awful film.

The only amusement I got from the film was Bruce Campbell's cameo and the ridiculousness of emoParker (there's a priceless shot of him flipping his hair, which made me laugh out loud in the theatre) was worth a few laughs of the "so embarassing it's funny as hell"-variety. Other than that, just awful.

Also, am I the only one who hates these ridiculously long CGI takes in action scenes where the "camera" zooms all over the place (for example, Spideys first fight with Green Goblin Harry)? Spiderman 3 had loads of them, and they all look just so freaking bad. Whenever a camera does something in a CGI shot that couldn't possibly be done in a real shot with a physical camera, it just underlines the fact that there's nothing real on the screen. Long takes are really impressive in action films where the use of a long take showcases the authenticity of the scene or the skill of the performers (Hard-Boiled's hospital hallway shootout, Oldboy's corridor melee, old Shaw Bros-films etc), but when everything on the screen is CGI they just look awful.

Len wrote:Also, am I the only one who hates these ridiculously long CGI takes in action scenes where the "camera" zooms all over the place (for example, Spideys first fight with Green Goblin Harry)?

Yeah, I can't stand that either; it makes it look like a videogame cutscene. And you're right, it ends up highlighting the impossibility of the whole thing when the movie's job is to make you forget that you're watching special effects. I suppose I wouldn't mind so much if the 'camera' weren't so obtrusive and maybe held back a bit to let us savour the action rather than trying add unnecessary kineticism by careening around like a muddled bat.

George Lucas - with no sense of irony - weighs in on Spiderman 3:

Spider-man 3 "Silly," Says Lucas

George Lucas has joined the major newspaper critics in their negative appraisal of Spider-Man 3. In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, Lucas said, "It's a silly movie. ... There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?" Over the weekend, Spider-Man 3 surged ahead of Lucas's Star Wars' episode Revenge of the Sith to take the record for the biggest weekend box-office record. Star Wars was also criticized as being "silly," Lucas noted. "But it wasn't." He also disclosed that he is working on at least two other Star Wars movies for television. "But they won't have members of the Skywalker family as characters. They will be other people of that milieu."

Antoine Doinel wrote:George Lucas - with no sense of irony - weighs in on Spiderman 3:

Spider-man 3 "Silly," Says Lucas

George Lucas has joined the major newspaper critics in their negative appraisal of Spider-Man 3. In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, Lucas said, "It's a silly movie. ... There just isn't much there. Once you take it all apart, there's not much story, is there?" Over the weekend, Spider-Man 3 surged ahead of Lucas's Star Wars' episode Revenge of the Sith to take the record for the biggest weekend box-office record. Star Wars was also criticized as being "silly," Lucas noted. "But it wasn't." He also disclosed that he is working on at least two other Star Wars movies for television. "But they won't have members of the Skywalker family as characters. They will be other people of that milieu."

This is coming from the same person who did Phantom Menace and Howard the Duck.

Unironic George Lucas wrote:Star Wars was also criticized as being "silly," Lucas noted. "But it wasn't."

Well, I'm convinced.

dx23 wrote:This is coming from the same person who did Phantom Menace and Howard the Duck.

doesn't make him wrong

chaddoli wrote:

dx23 wrote:This is coming from the same person who did Phantom Menace and Howard the Duck.

doesn't make him wrong

Yeah, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Thus even George Lucas can be right once in a while -- just not when he's behind the camera.

Wow, I don't ever remember Mary Jane looking like this!

Antoine Doinel wrote:Wow, I don't ever remember Mary Jane looking like this!

Heh. Have you ever seen Todd McFarlane draw her?

Saw this tonight and it was largely pretty bad. Far too much of the maudlin, sad sack Peter Parker-Mary Jane-Harry Osborne-Eddie Brock-Gwen Stacy love pentagon that was as predictable as it was poorly written and predictable. Was Peter Parker really this much of an emo loser in the comics? I fear looking at them again if this is the case.

Behind the camera, Raimi let's several scenes go too far into camp territory. The awful jazz club scene stands out in particular as being fairly embarassing as does the Spiderman posing in front of an American flag. The scene of the newscaster talking about the "brutality" of it all as Spiderman gets the snot kicked out of him on live TV may as well have been talking about the film itself.

For me, the only parts of the film I enjoyed were actually the fight sequences which I thought were the best filmed and most kinetic of the entire series. Bruce Campbell's cameo was great (Stan Lee's cameo wasn't) and I enjoyed Thomas Haden Church and Topher Grace in their respective roles.

But this is a franchise that started off merely good and has gotten progressively worse. I'm not sure what I don't believe most: that this film is breaking box office records or that they are going to make three more of them.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Saw this tonight and it was largely pretty bad. Far too much of the maudlin, sad sack Peter Parker-Mary Jane-Harry Osborne-Eddie Brock-Gwen Stacy love pentagon that was as predictable as it was poorly written and predictable. Was Peter Parker really this much of an emo loser in the comics?

From what I remember of reading Spidey comics in the 80s and early 90s he was quite the sarcastic, smug, funny little bastard. I never saw that in any of the spidey films but I still enjoyed the first two installments. I haven't seen the third and judging by the reviews I'm in no rush to see it.

I finally mustered up the courage to see this last night and it really is as bad as everyone else is saying. What happened to the emotional core present in the first two? It's like Raimi told Tobey Maguire to forget how to act and just pretend to be sweetly retarded, and the script just seems like a total "fuck you" to fans of the comics and anyone who liked the first two films. It's been pointed out by a million people, but what's the point of Peter Parker wearing a mask in the first place if he's just going to do everything he possibly can to expose his identity? I also don't know what was the point of introducing Gwen Stacy, or making her look like an albino.

The effects were amazingly unconvincing for a movie with this much money pumped into it, and the fact that it seems like 90% of the movie was shot in front of a greenscreen gave it this weird detached feeling, especially considering how many horribly fake shots of Peter Parker falling there were. The villains were similarly unconvincing - at least the first two had actors (or stuntmen) in costumes, this time around they're mostly CGI.

Ultimately, while the first two played on themes of fate and responsibility, the theme running through this one was pure dumb luck.

Also, as an aside, the theater i saw this in was projecting it at a totally wrong aspect ratio (it looks like the OAR is 2.35:1) and it looked horrible, it was obviously messed up because you could barely read the credits and when characters were at the edges of the frame most of their face was missing. I would have complained but I kind of assumed whoever I spoke to would have no clue what I was talking about or why I was upset.

Saw this last night on IMAX and thought it was awesome. The goofiness and lame acting may piss off the fanboys, but it is what sets this apart from "serious" comix flix (what an oxymoron) like Batman Begins and Superman Returns. I didn't see SpiderMan 1 and thought 2 was boring.

Lame acting only pisses off fanboys? When did this happen?

Sam Raimi May Not Helm 'Spider-Man 4'; Wants Electro, Vulture As Villains If He Does

I don't care about another Spider-Man film unless Raimi has full creative control. I didn't have a problem with the humor of 3 like the self-deprication of Tobey Maguire or the Crimewave style dance number. I had a problem with the lack of inherent logic, character development, critical scenes missing, narration montage and random exposition as bandaids and over, a bad script with bad ideas. I had a problem with the Batman Forever ending where Venom spouts reflexive one-liners that we're only supposed to find funny if we like making fun of the franchise itself.

The Art of Spider-Man 3 book shows that the producers have no problem with bragging about derailing most of Raimi's ideas or adding terrible ones of their own. The Spider-Man 2.1 commentary seems to showcase Alvin Sargent's disinterest in reading the original comics. Unless Raimi is given full reigns this time, there's just going to be more Joel Schumacher-esque shenigans with enough empty character cameos dropped in to keep this franchise going nowhere forever. And if that's what the producers want, Raimi needs to GET OUT NOW.

The Art of Spider-Man 3 book shows that the producers have no problem with bragging about derailing most of Raimi's ideas or adding terrible ones of their own.

And why shouldn't they? The film made a shit-load of money, which only proves to them that they were right to meddle.

Mr_sausage wrote:And why shouldn't they? The film made a shit-load of money, which only proves to them that they were right to meddle.

The publication of the book predates the release of the film. Unlike X-Men, the film is performing considerably weaker than it's predecessors in a prime May slot. With an early summer release comparative to the original film and 3 weeks of little in live-action competition, the film isn't doing what it should be. I figured most of you knew that already.

As of June 24, 2007, the worldwide total is $878.9 million.

Yes, I'm sure Sony executives are very disappointed.

Really? The reported gross so far is $330,021,137 (according to IMDB), which isn't that far off from what Spider-Man 2 made. Were they really expecting Spider-Man 3 to do that much better than the first 2? And even if it had a 3 week jump on the rest of the summer blockbusters, I don't think either of the first two films were up against a summer that was this stacked with big movies week after week.

patrick wrote:Really? The reported gross so far is $330,021,137 (according to IMDB), which isn't that far off from what Spider-Man 2 made.

Spider-Man 2 was released in the latter half of summer 2004. There is a certain dollar amount that most studios expect to make depending on what weekends they frontload on (Memorial Day, Fourth of July) combined with how much of the summer is left. The original Spider-Man didn't just open well, it maintained a hefty presence throughout the season. Unlike the first sequel where they were thrown directly into production, the third film benefited from a longer development period giving them the ability to choose a healthier release date in early May.

Were they really expecting Spider-Man 3 to do that much better than the first 2?

Better than the previous film, yes. Again, if you consider the other major league Marvel summer franchise, each film has done better than the last. Spider-Man 2 had a late start and the newest entry had an even larger budget, so they expected more thanks to the schedule. So only if you compare Spider-Man 3 to Spider-Man 2's more limited market share do you have a similar box office total, and then it's still less with the profit hammered moreso with still bigger costs (budget, P&A).

And even if it had a 3 week jump on the rest of the summer blockbusters, I don't think either of the first two films were up against a summer that was this stacked with big movies week after week.

The first Spider-Man was up against Star Wars Episode II just slightly less than 2 weeks after it's debut and it still outperformed the other by quite a lot. I was working in a theater at the time and I remember Star Wars and a number of other sizeable blockbusters closing inside of Spider-Man's wide release window.

Spider-Man 2 went up against I, Robot in the third weekend and The Bourne Supremacy in the fourth. Nowhere near the kind of competition that Spider-Man faced in 2002, but both those films did well into the $150 million range. After Spider-Man 2's success, the other studios backed off even further by giving Spider-Man 3 a relatively empty first 3 weekends save for Shrek 3.

Despite a per-screen average *higher* than the first film on the first weekend of release (the 2nd did not achieve this), Spider-Man 3 sank futher than any of the other films (percentage wise) in subsequent weekend dropoffs. By the third weekend, it was managing a per-screen average of just half of what the first Spider-Man had at the same point despite 500 more theaters playing it. And there was no Star Wars this time.

DrewReiber wrote:The publication of the book predates the release of the film.

Well, if they were merely confident then, they're certainly justified in it now.

Mr_sausage wrote:Well, if they were merely confident then, they're certainly justified in it now.

If you say so. I'd love to see what the next one does based on the credibility established by the third.