Thanks for the review, Pepperidge. I was actually curious as to see how jumping the number of villains from 1 apiece in the first movies to 3 in this one would affect the plot--and, as I feared, Venom (my all-time favorite Spidey villain) only seems comes in at the eleventh hour. My only hope is that the fourth movie makes up with the disturbing lack of Venom by introducing Carnage into the mix.
Of course, I didn't really expect HARRY to get the short end of the plotline stick as well, considering that, like you said, his plot's been one gathering momentum over the previous films.
I blame it on the lame-ass "New Goblin" outfit.
Spider-Man 3 friday
-
Yami CJMErl
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:03 pm
- Location: Western New York
- Contact:
Venom at the least, is the last fight.
If I had to script a Spiderman 4, it'd basically be an adaptation of the Ultimate Clone saga with cameos by Black Cat, and a couple of scenes where Mysterio or Shocker is played entirely for laughs.The movie's bad moments are not even close to the franchise-destroying atrocities that the X-Men series has run into. But please Sony, just one villain next time.
-
Pepperidge
- Drano Master
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:01 pm
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Shit man, the next movie should be ALL Mysterio. Clones are just about the last thing this film franchise needs at this point.
It is still entirely possible for the fourth film to be good, even if Raimi is at the helm. But if Avi Arad foolishly pushes for Carnage to be the next baddie, we can consider this franchise dead in the water. Unfortunately, going with a Carnage/Lizard combo seems like an obvious idea now that Connors has the last remaining bit of the symbiote. I really, really hope that the film's director and the fans are smart enough to discourage that angle.
You see, that's not going to work. Not only is the symbiote thing going to seem really repetitious for two movies in a row, Carnage is going to be really difficult to portray in what should be a family friendly movie. He's a neat villain, but he's neat in the one-dimensional merciless serial killer who has more power than he should kind of way. And considering they were hesitant to make this film really dark (although in some ways I'm glad they didn't), I just can't imagine them jumping to a villain that slashes people left and right, even in a "PG-13" kind of way.Yami CJMErl wrote:My only hope is that the fourth movie makes up with the disturbing lack of Venom by introducing Carnage into the mix.
It is still entirely possible for the fourth film to be good, even if Raimi is at the helm. But if Avi Arad foolishly pushes for Carnage to be the next baddie, we can consider this franchise dead in the water. Unfortunately, going with a Carnage/Lizard combo seems like an obvious idea now that Connors has the last remaining bit of the symbiote. I really, really hope that the film's director and the fans are smart enough to discourage that angle.
-
Segaholic2
- Forum God
- Posts: 3516
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:28 am
So would you say Spider-Man 3 is the weakest of the trilogy? I don't know your stance on the previous two movies but you seem to have a lot to complain about this one.
I think that's fair, considering the Spider-Man series never managed to hit the same high that the entirety of X-Men 2 did. OH SNAP!The movie's bad moments are not even close to the franchise-destroying atrocities that the X-Men series has run into.
-
Pepperidge
- Drano Master
- Posts: 544
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:01 pm
- Location: British Columbia
- Contact:
Never was a huge fan of those X films. Even compared to Spider-Man 3, they've always had way too many characters to juggle. Really worked better as an animated series.
But at the very least, SM3 didn't destroy things on a fundamental level like The Last Stand did. It basically was the weakest of the trilogy, although it could easily be recut into a much better film. Let's hope they realize that when they go for that double-dip DVD release in a year or two.
But at the very least, SM3 didn't destroy things on a fundamental level like The Last Stand did. It basically was the weakest of the trilogy, although it could easily be recut into a much better film. Let's hope they realize that when they go for that double-dip DVD release in a year or two.
I also caught the midnight showing last night. I mostly agree with pep's mini review but I feel that he was perhaps too kind on a couple of levels.
Do you remember in Starwars 3 when certain dramatic bits were laughably bad? Well Spider Man 3 has this problem almost constantly.
My major gripes are:
-The Sandman was totally gratuitous and served little point but to accentuate the interjected theme of revenge.
-The symbiote lost most of the motivation it had in the comics especially when merged with eddie brock (there was no "we are venom" jazz).
-Venom was not threatening. Topher Grace, while a great eddie broke, made for a kind of weak Venom. Not in his performance so much as how he was written. (there is something extremely wrong with venom on the verge of tears as he taunts spider-man.)
-The end, for me, as the conclusion to a trilogy, left the characters in a really bad position. I'm mainly referring to the relationship Mary Jane and Peter hold.
-SO MUCH content was nauseatingly condensed into such a relatively short time frame. It would have been much better had there been less fanservice and more focus. Gwen Stacey seemed to be more of an after thought in relation to her pivotal role in the comics(Venom too.)
Don't get me wrong though, I felt that near the middle of the movie when everyone's lives are falling apart, the movie is solid gold. Emo Peter Parker must be seen to be believed.
Definitely the weakest of the trilogy and an average to solid movie in my opinion.
Do you remember in Starwars 3 when certain dramatic bits were laughably bad? Well Spider Man 3 has this problem almost constantly.
My major gripes are:
-The Sandman was totally gratuitous and served little point but to accentuate the interjected theme of revenge.
-The symbiote lost most of the motivation it had in the comics especially when merged with eddie brock (there was no "we are venom" jazz).
-Venom was not threatening. Topher Grace, while a great eddie broke, made for a kind of weak Venom. Not in his performance so much as how he was written. (there is something extremely wrong with venom on the verge of tears as he taunts spider-man.)
-The end, for me, as the conclusion to a trilogy, left the characters in a really bad position. I'm mainly referring to the relationship Mary Jane and Peter hold.
-SO MUCH content was nauseatingly condensed into such a relatively short time frame. It would have been much better had there been less fanservice and more focus. Gwen Stacey seemed to be more of an after thought in relation to her pivotal role in the comics(Venom too.)
Don't get me wrong though, I felt that near the middle of the movie when everyone's lives are falling apart, the movie is solid gold. Emo Peter Parker must be seen to be believed.
Definitely the weakest of the trilogy and an average to solid movie in my opinion.
The problem with Spiderman 3 is that it seems to be comprised mostly of fanservice.
Sandman is fanservice for Rami himself.
Venom is fanservice for the new school Spiderman fans.
Harry is fanservice for the movie fans.
As a result, much of the movie seems like trying to please everyone at the same time, and doesn't quite manage to do that. Or at least that's the feeling I'm getting.
Sandman is fanservice for Rami himself.
Venom is fanservice for the new school Spiderman fans.
Harry is fanservice for the movie fans.
As a result, much of the movie seems like trying to please everyone at the same time, and doesn't quite manage to do that. Or at least that's the feeling I'm getting.
-
Majestic Joey
- Posts: 512
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:30 pm
-
Segaholic2
- Forum God
- Posts: 3516
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 11:28 am
All the versions of the game for all the systems are getting absolutely ripped-apart. I'm not normally one to put too much stock into reviews, but when they are this unanimously bad you know something is up.
I'm pretty disappointed. I know it's silly to expect much from games based on movie licenses. But you know, all of the 3D Spider-man games have been pretty good, and the last two in particular were both legitimately excellent. I loved Ultimate Spider-man -- even with the dumbed down webbing mechanic, it looked, sounded and played better than anything they'd done yet. I think it might be my favourite super-hero game ever.
But it looks like they really dropped the ball this time, both with the PS3/360 version and the Wii/PS2/PSP version. Ouch. :/
I'm pretty disappointed. I know it's silly to expect much from games based on movie licenses. But you know, all of the 3D Spider-man games have been pretty good, and the last two in particular were both legitimately excellent. I loved Ultimate Spider-man -- even with the dumbed down webbing mechanic, it looked, sounded and played better than anything they'd done yet. I think it might be my favourite super-hero game ever.
But it looks like they really dropped the ball this time, both with the PS3/360 version and the Wii/PS2/PSP version. Ouch. :/
-
Yami CJMErl
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:03 pm
- Location: Western New York
- Contact:
Fix'd.Segaholic2 wrote:What are you talking about, the Wii is two GAMECUBEs duct-taped together with a gay remote.
And I'm suddenly worried about the Spider-Man 3 game--I have yet to see any reviews, see, and to suddenly hear that a game that's SUPPOSED to play very much like the incredibly good Spider-Man 2 game is nothing but a festering pile concerns me.
I liked it, but my expectations were way too high.
I loveloveloved Spider-Man 2, and since I knew the writer of Spidey 2 was onboard for the third film, I was really expecting an epic, dramatic film.
All of these ads promoting the "battle within" and Peter's inner-turomil is flagrant false advertising. All the suit does to Peter is make him dance and wink at people. He hardly even WEARS the thing.
For a 2 & 1/2 hour film, it's a real crime the black suit was only shown for twenty minutes. They could've easily had him use it for an hour and a half, and then the rest of the time, use the red/blue duds. That way it'd be more emotional and such when he finally does get rid of it.
Sandman nearly put me to sleep in all the scenes he was in. And do not get me started on the horeendous dialogue. (Especially in the last battle scene)
Other bad points:
-Peter finding out about Sandman/Venom on a conviently placed TV News report. Talk about a cartoony cliche.
-The cheesy 'let's team up to kill Spider-Man!' thing between Sandman and Venom
-Venom never actually getting his name
-Poor attempt at making Sandman seem like a "deep" sympathetic villain.
-Eddie Brock's idiotic death. HE LUNGES IN THE WAY OF A GRENADE. Idiot.
Despite all of these faults, I still enjoyed it, but it defintely is the weakest of the three.
I loveloveloved Spider-Man 2, and since I knew the writer of Spidey 2 was onboard for the third film, I was really expecting an epic, dramatic film.
All of these ads promoting the "battle within" and Peter's inner-turomil is flagrant false advertising. All the suit does to Peter is make him dance and wink at people. He hardly even WEARS the thing.
For a 2 & 1/2 hour film, it's a real crime the black suit was only shown for twenty minutes. They could've easily had him use it for an hour and a half, and then the rest of the time, use the red/blue duds. That way it'd be more emotional and such when he finally does get rid of it.
Sandman nearly put me to sleep in all the scenes he was in. And do not get me started on the horeendous dialogue. (Especially in the last battle scene)
Other bad points:
-Peter finding out about Sandman/Venom on a conviently placed TV News report. Talk about a cartoony cliche.
-The cheesy 'let's team up to kill Spider-Man!' thing between Sandman and Venom
-Venom never actually getting his name
-Poor attempt at making Sandman seem like a "deep" sympathetic villain.
-Eddie Brock's idiotic death. HE LUNGES IN THE WAY OF A GRENADE. Idiot.
Despite all of these faults, I still enjoyed it, but it defintely is the weakest of the three.
-
Crazy Penguin
- Drano Master
- Posts: 1903
- Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 10:06 pm
Of course he could have carried a full movie. So could Mysterio, Electro, Scorpion and a bunch of others.Zeta wrote:it should've been obvious Sandy couldn't carry a movie by himself.
A watered down Doctor Octopus managed a full movie fine enough. So did Green Goblin, a villain who was traditionally teamed up with gangsters.
Personally I think it would have been a great idea for them to do an adaptation of the classic "Master Planner" storyline, if not for Spider-Man 2, which makes it almost impossible from a continuity stand-point. Hopefully this will get adapted for the upcoming animated series.
I wish they would make a film or cartoon or SOMETHING that adapts the era of the comic that had Spidey in the black suit romping around with the Black Cat. Those comics were so fun, and so unique in the character's overall history. They were practically sidekicks!
Actually, now that I think about it, the whole "love triangle" subplot of Spider-man 3 would have probably made more sense if the "evil" Parker was being enticed by a overtly sexual superhero character like Black Cat rather than someone like Gwen Stacy.
Of course, judging by the short shrift they had to give Gwen, it's probably for the best that they didn't try to tackle that story.
I understand that, to do the Venom story all in one film, you need to have a second villain other than Venom that Spider-man can fight when he is wearing the black suit himself. He needs someone he can beat on to show how the suit is driving him nuts. I just think that role could have been filled entirely by Harry.
I love Sandman but there just wasn't room for him in this film. Of the three villains, he was the only one who didn't NEED to be there, narratively speaking. He should have been the first thing they cut from the script, just like how they cut Lizard and Black Cat out of Spider-man 2.
Actually, now that I think about it, the whole "love triangle" subplot of Spider-man 3 would have probably made more sense if the "evil" Parker was being enticed by a overtly sexual superhero character like Black Cat rather than someone like Gwen Stacy.
Of course, judging by the short shrift they had to give Gwen, it's probably for the best that they didn't try to tackle that story.
I understand that, to do the Venom story all in one film, you need to have a second villain other than Venom that Spider-man can fight when he is wearing the black suit himself. He needs someone he can beat on to show how the suit is driving him nuts. I just think that role could have been filled entirely by Harry.
I love Sandman but there just wasn't room for him in this film. Of the three villains, he was the only one who didn't NEED to be there, narratively speaking. He should have been the first thing they cut from the script, just like how they cut Lizard and Black Cat out of Spider-man 2.
With the focus they put on the whole revenge theme throughout the film though they pretty much forced the sandman into a pivotal role. Even more so than Venom. (although now that I think about it, Harry, Peter, and Eddie were each fueled by revenge. This all was nicely set up. It's a shame they did such a sloppy job with it. )
-
Heroic One
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:04 pm
- Location: Someplace inconspicuous
-
Black Rook
- Mundane Cake Recipes
- Posts: 313
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:34 am
- Location: Garbage Can
If you can find me a movie that does a worse job of making a dam collapse and a fight between two superhumans with metal claws seem exciting, I'd like you to name it so I can avoid it.Segaholic2 wrote:I think that's fair, considering the Spider-Man series never managed to hit the same high that the entirety of X-Men 2 did. OH SNAP!
And secretly watch it.
I just got back from seeing the film. Overal, decent but not as good as the first 2 films pretty much sums it up. I think the handling of the villains was definitely the worst thing though. Sandman just seemed to be "I have a sick daughter hence it doesn't matter if I do bad things." Obviously they were trying give some depth to the character but it failed miserably. Harry started off well but amnesia? Could they have used a worse cliche? Only Venom I felt was done somewhat decently but ultimately ruined a bit by limited screen time. The Eddie Brock character and the black suit were handled pretty well though. I also hated how they tampered with the Uncle Ben's killer of Spider-Man's origin. They clearly did it to help with the revenge theme of the film but for me it just completely ruins that part of the origin.
It's worth a watch but just don't expect something up to the same standard of the first 2 films.
It's worth a watch but just don't expect something up to the same standard of the first 2 films.
-
Yami CJMErl
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:03 pm
- Location: Western New York
- Contact:
Sure the amnesia thing is cliché, but I like that it reminded the audience that Harry's really a good guy at heart, and of course it built up to the buddy-buddy thing between him and Peter at the end.
Still, that doesn't excuse the film from its general incompetence. It failed for exactly the reason I expected it too: too many villains. Sandman was almost entirely unnecessary, Harry seemed to be written in as an obligation, and Venom, while awesome, was underplayed and his vast potential left completely untapped. What DOES save the film from its incompetence is its comedic value. Playing black-suit Peter for laughs was hilarious; seeing Maguire prancing around with his hair pulled down and wearing that cheesy, sleazy grin had me rolling. When Bruce Campbell came onscreen half the theater cheered. And Harry hit his head so many times I couldn't help but laugh.
Ultimately, I had a lot of fun watching the movie, but I would never call it great cinema.
Still, that doesn't excuse the film from its general incompetence. It failed for exactly the reason I expected it too: too many villains. Sandman was almost entirely unnecessary, Harry seemed to be written in as an obligation, and Venom, while awesome, was underplayed and his vast potential left completely untapped. What DOES save the film from its incompetence is its comedic value. Playing black-suit Peter for laughs was hilarious; seeing Maguire prancing around with his hair pulled down and wearing that cheesy, sleazy grin had me rolling. When Bruce Campbell came onscreen half the theater cheered. And Harry hit his head so many times I couldn't help but laugh.
Ultimately, I had a lot of fun watching the movie, but I would never call it great cinema.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that they kill all the tension building up with Harry in the first 3 movies with the butler finally telling him how his dad died. If he'd told him 2 movies ago, he wouldn't had wanted revenge for Peter/Spidey and we would've been able to focus more on other villians.
It seems like most people wanted to see it for Venom and the black suite and that was down-played by the over-all theme of revenge. Since the focus was on revenge, I think Sandman's part with Spider-Man not killing him was significant.
It's too bad Eddie/Venom weren't the only villians. I think they could've carried the movie.
It seems like most people wanted to see it for Venom and the black suite and that was down-played by the over-all theme of revenge. Since the focus was on revenge, I think Sandman's part with Spider-Man not killing him was significant.
It's too bad Eddie/Venom weren't the only villians. I think they could've carried the movie.