• 🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪
  • 🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥

Anybody see Spider Man 3?

K

kcoleman

Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2006
Messages
532
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
.
IML Gear Cream!
Saw it last night. Was pretty disappointed. I'd say what I thought about it, but this review I came across on IMDB pretty much mirrors my sentiments verbatim:

Author: shrek311 from United States

What is there to say about this movie? After the light-hearted yet great action-packed first two movies, what were we to expect for the third movie? Apparently the movie was marketed as the "darkest" of the three, seemed to promise more action, especially when combining three villains from the comic books.

But as a loyal fan, I went to the theater to see the movie. Bought the tickets multiple days in advance and waited to see what has been hyped up for so long. And the reviews and critics were right. The movie tries to do too much and in the end disappoints.

First, the movie fails to fully introduce any of the new characters, and for most of the first half is quite scatter brained and moves from sequence to sequence, failing to bring any of these stories really together.

Despite the poor development, the worst part of the movie was the cheesiness. Yes, we all know this is a comic adaptation. Yes, we all know comic books are cheesy. But not to this extent. For moments, I had actually believed we were sitting in the wrong theater, watching some horrible chick flick. There were moments in the movie that seemed out of ordinary, random, like chosen scenes from SNL making parodies of itself. As funny as this may sound, it made it difficult to continue watching the movie. We were constantly reminded of Tobey Maguire and James Franco's inexperience as actors. Neither of whom could pull of the cheesiness or light-hearted fun.

The movie writers completely moved away from what the first two movies set up. And even worse, they deceived the movie-goer with the trailers. You enter the theater expecting more action, some darker events, but perhaps the same light-hearted comic book fun. Yet, you get less action, less plot development, "dark" events that are impossible to take seriously and will just laugh at instead, and over-sapped cheesiness that puts "Scary Movie," "Not Another Teen Movie," and "Can't Hardly Wait" to shame. For a movie that was portrayed in the trailers as "the darkest of the three," it earned the most laughters, mockeries, disappointments and walk-outs I've seen in a Spiderman screening.

It was honestly difficult to sit through this movie. I am a comic book junky, and even for me, it was nearly unbearable. Very disappointed in the way they chose to finish the series.
Click to expand...
 
ReproMan said:
Not only is the title to the thread not Spider Man 3, but the topic of discussion is weed. :lol:
Click to expand...
I know. It's funny how threads change direction so fast at times.

Although, I might add that the best way to watch a movie, especially one like spiderman 3, is blazed.

Mind, there has been a few times i've gone in smoked up, enjoyed the movie, and then actually can't remember much about it half an hour later.
 
goob said:
Although, I might add that the best way to watch a movie, especially one like spiderman 3, is blazed.
Click to expand...

Yup. And somehow I never leave the theater disappointed. :thinking:
 
I agreed with maybe 10% of that asshole's critique.

It was rushed. The movie does try to do too many things. That is what sucked. That "rush" served as a blackhole. If you werent a comic book fan, would you even give a shit about Venom (whom was NEVER named in the movie)? Sandman's creation was 'rushed' and thus, seemed too random. Both villains have incredible backgrounds and couldve had their own two movies.

The "cheese" the critic amplifies, is there, but no where NEAR the extent this dipshit speaks upon. The cheesy remarks during the last battle are in fact, cheesy and should have NEVER been there, but to speak of "walk outs" is just plain unbelievable.

One or Two people walking out of a theater doesnt mean shit. 1-2 people "walking out" isnt enough to justify a low judgement on a movie that I remain seated to watch. Maybe theyre going to the fucking bathroom!

Despite the review, I just thought of something. Sam Raimi couldve completley took out the Green Boblin Jr. in this movie. Seriously, the plot wouldnt had skipped a beat and he couldve used the new extra time to fill in some credible gaps for Sand/Venom. Sadly though, Goblin's fights seemed better, but Ill go out on a limb and say it was better cuz it took 2 previous movies to build up.

Venom shouldve had a battle at the end (maybe) and escaped. A lot of things "shouldve" been done, but to say that this movie "sucked" really makes me wonder how demanding people are.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Cinematical Seven: Ways They Could Have Made 'Spider-Man 3' Better

Cinematical Seven: Ways They Could Have Made 'Spider-Man 3' Better - Cinematical

I saw Spider-Man 3 Saturday night. It was a total mess, but the visuals were incredible, the fight scenes were thrilling, and I enjoyed enough of the film to make it worth my time. Still, it occurred to me on the way home that with a few simple changes, the film could have been a superhero classic. And

Before we begin, please know that I'm not a die-hard Spidey fan. The first two Spider-Man films were entertaining enough, but I forgot them immediately afterward. I know when you read that heading you probably thought this article would consist of complaints like "Why didn't they do such-and-such with the character of Venom like they did in Issue #231 of blah-blah-bloo?" But that's not me. This article comes from the point of view of an average guy with no knowledge of comic books who went into Spider-Man 3 with no expectations. Here's what I would have changed to make the movie more entertaining to me. SPOILERS AHEAD!

1) Kill Mary Jane in the opening scene

The Uncle stuff is played out, Peter needs something new to be upset about. And I used to love Kirsten Dunst, but now she "acts" her scenes like she can't wait for someone to yell "Cut!" so she can go and make out with one of The Strokes. Are we really supposed to believe that Peter would choose Dunst's dehydrated, negative, miserable Mary Jane over Bryce Dallas Howard's pants-explodingly hot, upbeat, and cheerful Gwen Stacey? Mary Jane is a terrible girlfriend! She spends the entire film whining about her lackluster singing abilities to a guy who spends his time keeping the city free from evil! She's dull, she's pouty, and she participates in elaborate Chubby Checker-scored cooking/dancing/infidelity montages with James Franco! Dump her!

2) Have your villains get upset before the last twenty minutes roll around

A no-brainer. I can't recall seeing a movie where the villains decided "You know, maybe we should kill the hero" so late in the game. The Sandman appeared to be thinking about what to have for dinner for most of the film. Venom doesn't even enter the picture until the last third. It's screenwriting 101, especially in a movie of this kind. By the end of Act One, you better be damn sure your audience knows who the antagonist is, and what your hero is up against. Nobody seems to have clear motives here. All the characters are confused and conflicted and don't really know who they want to kill and why or if they even want to. That's fine for a Scorsese film, but this is Spider-Man, people!

3) More J.K. Simmons and Bruce Campbell

In the few moments of screen time given to each of these fantastic character actors, they charged the movie with an energy that nearly all of the other actors lacked. As a huge Oz fan, it's always a little jarring to see J.K. Simmons in other roles ??? I kept expecting him to sexually assault Peter Parker. But once I got past that, the guy was hilarious. And Bruce Campbell's champagne back-and-forth in the restaurant was pure gold. Truth be told, Campbell should have played The Sandman. He certainly would have brought more life to it than Thomas Haden Church -- who must have thought he was playing the Sandman who puts kids to sleep.

4) Cut all scenes with Aunt May

Toot toot! Next stop, Snoozeville! Good Lord! I understand that Aunt May gives Peter his moral guidance and all that crap, but this old broad grinded the movie to a screeching halt every time she appeared on screen. That story of how her marriage proposal went down was like watching beige paint dry. Her voice is laced with Sominex. I hate to be insensitive, but no action movie should feature several lengthy scenes of the hero having deep conversations with an elderly woman.

5) Have a little fun with the character names

Yeah, the changes would have ticked off the fan base, but I think two great opportunities were missed here. A) When Peter Parker is in "Black Spiderman" mode, he should be referred to as "Peter Darker." B) Instead of Flint Marko, The Sandman's alias should be "Sandy Beachington."

6) More Peter Darker

From the reviews I've read, it is clear that people hate the scenes in which Peter's nasty side takes over. My favorite Indiana Jones film is Temple of Doom, so this is coming from a guy who loves seeing the hero turn evil -- but I just wanted more. Tobey Maguire is something of a void in these films. It's the same problem with Clark Kent, the character is almost too good, and therefore kinda boring. Having Peter become a cocky bastard is just what the series ??? and Maguire - needs at this point, and I wish they'd explored that a bit more. As for the dancing scenes that caused such an outrage in early screenings, I loved 'em. I don't really understand complaints that the Saturday Night Fever stuff was too ridiculous and unbelievable. Let me get this straight -- you have no issue with a man who gets superpowers from a spider bite, dresses in a red suit, flies through the city, and shoots webs from his wrists ??? but when he goes to a dance club, then the credibility is strained?

7) Have somebody be just Pure Evil

I like shades of gray in my heroes and bad guys, but in a movie like this, someone has to be an unrepentant Villain with a capital "V." You know, the kind of guy the audience can't wait to see dead. No one filled that role here. Let's just break down this list of so-called "villains."


  • Harry Osborn/Goblin Jr. is desperately trying to kill Peter for about ten minutes before he gets amnesia and becomes a total cotton-candy eating sweetheart. Later, he's a jerk again for 10 minutes and then he's teaming up with Peter to fight the bad guys. Pick a side!
  • Flint Marko/Sandman is the worst of the lot. He killed Peter's uncle? Sweet, there's a reason to kill him! Oh, but wait ??? it was an accident. He's just misunderstood. And sad. Oh, and he loves his daughter! He was doing it all for money to save her life. So...should we be cheering against Peter trying to kill him? And if so, why is he in this movie? So Marko and Peter can put their differences aside and build Sandman castles somewhere? Lame!
  • Eddie Brock/Venom is the closest we've got to a true villain here, but he's more a John Hughes bad guy than a comic book villain. Topher Grace's Brock is smarmy, he's conceited, he doesn't treat his girlfriend with respect -- he's basically James Spader in every 80's movie. But should he be killed for those qualities? When the black gunk transforms Brock into Venom, he's truly nasty and scary. But Raimi makes the choice to have Grace's face constantly popping out from the mask, making wisecracks and reminding you that he's really just your average douche with frosted tips.
Maybe it's refreshing to some, but Spider-Man forgiving, consoling, and rescuing those that are out to destroy him doesn't make for the most satisfactory action flick.

And I haven't even mentioned my disappointment that they didn't use Metallica's "Enter Sandman" in the creation sequence!
Click to expand...
 
Ok, is this going to keep happening? How many nerds out there are going to write reviews even longer than mine?

However, I agree with a lot of this guy's points.

1-Yes, I never liked Kirsten Dunst. Id fuck her, but shes no Mary Jane.
2-Prolly this movie's biggest flaw. Summarized version would be just one word: rushed
3-I liked Bruce Cambell in both 2 & 3. Was he in 1?
4-I thought her scenes were fine.
5-And make more cheese? Please. (hah!)
6-I liked his darker side too. In fact, its a love/hate relationship. The club scene was for humor, clearly. But I like this review's explanation of "unrealistic." Its actually exactly what I said to my date when she said "like this would really happen."
7-Big fucking YES. Consistentcy! I also disliked Venom showing Eddie's face during every line. Why? Show his face once if you NEED to, then stick to Venom's. Thats what everyone came for anyway.
 
i have too many issues with the movie series to list in a single post that anybody would read; hell, I don't even care that much. But personally I liked the third one the most of the three, particularly cuz it had some cheesy fun that took me back to the 90's like the TTMNT movie. C'mon, the jazz club scene was stripped straight from The Mask.

As long as we're on topic, anybody have any good weed stories?
 
Campbell was great. I love his cameos. Sandman was a really cool villain. That's all I really got out of Spider Man 3.
 
I disagree that the graphics were good. I would hate how MJ would be speaking to Peter, turn her back, and suddenly Peter is now a cartoon version of Spider man. And the fast action scenes, although quick so it made it a little less obvious, were extremely cartoony. The same thing happened in the 100 Smiths scene in the second Matrix. I imagine in a few years we're gonna look back at those scenes be amazed at how we used to accept these type of "special effects." To me, watching a cartoon do the work that a live actor was doing a scene ago is not entertaining.
 
I don't think I've ever watched more than 20 minutes of either of the other 2 when they came to HBO....because I just don't spend money to go to the theater anymore, I just wait until they show up on cable for the soul reason I would hate to waste my money on something like this and have it end up being a piece of shit and I can't change the channel to find something more interesting.....otherwise I'll watch a movie on DVD on the rare occasion my GF buys one she thinks might be good....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top