Long, but entertaining: Spider-Man 3

Ok...thanks for the Spidey history lesson. I didn't know if Peter knew about the vulnerability to sound before going into the tower in the comics or not.

I agree on Venom being stuck in there despite Raimi's wishes. Raimi is a Spider-Man fan, but from before Venom ever showed up. I think the Venom stuff could have worked better on its own, but Raimi wasn't "feeling" the character and that's why he used him that way. I remember there was some stuff about Venom terrorizing Spidey's loved ones, using his intimate knowledge of Peter's mind to get his revenge. Then again, we've seen people attack Spider-Man through his loved ones plenty in the movies already.

The X-Men 3 comparisons are appropriate, though I think this was a better film. The drop from the first two X-Men films to the third wasn't nearly as steep. I guess I just enjoyed both despite the flaws.

 

One of the things I miss in these movies is Parker using science and intelligence to defeat villains.
It started with the first movie, when they opted to have him actually shoot webbing out of his wrists. Sure, this lead to humorous masturbatory scene in his bedroom.
But it also left out the element of him designing the the web shooters, mixing and refining the web formula, etc.

The story line about Jameson's son would have been too much for this movie, but they could have found a better way to introduce the symbiote. They also could have found a better way to introduce it's weakness to high-decibel sound.
The 'Saturday Night Fever' strut down the was funny. The dance scene was a groaner.

 

Raimi said he just didn't think it was realistic for a kid that young to be inventing something like web shooters. That is why they went with them being biological. I can't say I agreed with the choice at the time, but the execution was so damn funny in the original movie, it was worth it.

Also, there was a pretty obscure moment in the comics, I think it was last year, in which Hank Pym chided Spider-Man for using his fists too much and wasting his scientific mind. I've seen that theme a time or two, that the double life has kept him from fully developing his abilities as a scientist. That showed up in the second movie when he was struggling in Dr. Connors' class.

 

I thought this was way better than that steaming pile of crap, X-3.

 

According to imdb, Sony signs on for 3 more Spidey flicks:

 

Which means we could get 3 pieces of shit.....or more likely one piece of shit that kills the franchise...unless they can get Maguire, Dunst and Raimi back.

 

Stan Lee has made a shitpile off these movies. What else is he going to say?

 

I'm not talking about interviews related to the comics. I'm talking about things he has said for years and years, since before Spider-Man was made into a movie. Just like he compares X-Men to a soap opera with superpowers. He has always understood that it is making his characters relatable to the fans that makes them work.

 

I was thinking on this and I do get why many fans are upset with things in the movies, especially this one. But that's what happens in the movies. They change things.

Look at the first two X-Men movies, the ones most people seemed to think were good. I remember how ridiculous I found the idea of a 6-foot-2 actor playing Wolverine, who is supposed to be about 5-3.

They played Toad as cocky and tough, completely out of character. They made Sabertooth into an idiot. In the comics, he is usually portrayed as being cunning and ruthless. The only line they got right the entire movie is when he told Storm to "Scream for me," catching a bit of the character's sadistic side.

Oh yeah...and even if he lost his powers, wounds that had already healed would not open back up on Wolverine as they did at the end of the first movie. That was ridiculous.

But you know what? It didn't matter. Jackman is one of the things that made those movies work, no matter how tall he was, and the other shit was easy enough to ignore in service of the stories.

Just don't get me started on X-3....

 

See: Batman, 1989.

 

OK, I saw it again, and hated it the second time. There are easily 20 extraneous minutes -- at least -- in this movie that can be lopped off.

You want to talk about unwatchable scenes in movies? The first time I saw the scene, it registered like a bugsplatter on the windshield, but the second time around, the little girl haggling with the editor for the photog position actually made me squirm.

 

I loved Spiderman I. I thought Spiderman II might have been the best sequel I have ever seen.

I was very disappointed in Spiderman III for a number of reasons.

I thought the bad guys were terrible -- good special effects but horrible characters. The photo kid who turns into a villian was just not believable -- I mean, he just wasn't scary or someone to hate - and the speech by sandman at the end brought a silly close to an even sillier character.

And the son of the Goblin -- who knew what to make of him.

Couple that with the over-the-top love story and a number of characters we meet but never really meet -like the daughter of the police chief -- it was just way too much stuff to try and take in and by the end we're not really that interested in any of it.

Just not a very good effort, though, I must say my kids said it was "awesome" so I guess that is good for the movie because I'm sure they are far more the target audience than I am.