Long, but entertaining: Spider-Man 3

It's the cheesy dialogue that the comics are partly known for.

 

Depends who is writing the comic. Like anything else, there are comic writers who create wonderful dialogue, there are those that flat-out suck at it and many levels in between.

 

I really thought Topher Grace did a good job. I was pleasantly surprised with what he brought to the table.
I could have done with them taking out Sandman and spending that time further exploring the Venom storyline (did they ever even use that name?).
It was worth seeing, but I don't know that I'll feel the need to watch it again.

 

No. . . . the comics are known for Spidey running his mouth as he fights. They're not known for stupid kids in scenes only a 7-year-old would find funny.

 

Saw it with my son last weekend. The first thing I said when we walked out was "This movie needed editing in the worst way possible. There was at least 25-30 extraneous minutes that needed to be lopped off."

Kirsten Dunst's character jumped the shark from intriguing to annoying.

That said, the actress who played Gwen... rowrrrrrr :-*

 

bird, I agree about Dunst. (Is this character really supposed to be Broadway material? I can't jump that far.) Glortho Rasputin has said it best. Take out the following:

-- clowning between the kid/editor and some of the oohing and aahing by the crowd (why must these climactic fight scenes always come with a paid audience?)
-- the homage to Saturday Night Fever was, eh, all right ... and then it goes on for about five more minutes. Same with the dance sequence in the club.
-- the ring ... again, much too long, goes absolutely nowhere
-- Harry moving in on Peter's girl, another one of this movie's pathetic disjunctures

You can go on and on, but that's 10 minutes right there. I checked the glow in the dark hands on my Mickey Mouse three times during this movie. Not a good sign, the truism holds up.

Maguire needs to think about whether he wants to keep doing these movies. If he's not careful, they'll be what he's remembered for, and he's too good an actor to be classified that way.

 

It's called an Indiglo Movie.

And I thought the movie blew chunks as well, for all the reasons already posted. But my 12 year old liked it, and the popcorn was good.

 

I didn't want to say it earlier but Birdscribe hit the nail on the head -- Dunst was one of the most annoying major characters I can remember in a movie since Sharon's Stone's character in Casino.

By the end of it every time she talked, screamed, sang, appeared -- I got that same feeling I used to get when people would scratch their nails on the chalk board.......

 

Still haven't seen this. Then again, I'm not a big moviephile. Considering doing the IMAX thing tonight.

 

Dunst has so lost her fastball, and at such a relative young age.

She's the Kerry Wood of motion pictures.

 

It will be interesting to see what they do with 4, 5 and 6, because there is no way any of the current group is coming back given how 3 ended.

Not because it was a lousy movie. It wasn't up to the standards of the first 2, but it was still good, and still had some emotional wallop to it. What Raimi ended up doing was creating an anti-comic book comic book movie.

(SPOILER ALERT)

By having Peter Parker forgive Flint Darko for killing his Uncle Ben, Raimi took away Spiderman's inspiration to become Spiderman. He becomes Spiderman not just because a spider bit him, but out of guilt for not stopping his uncle's death, and revenge on anyone who would commit such an atrocity. Maybe Raimi was forced to add Eddie Brock/Venom, but he set him up nicely as a symbolic character of how revenge can consume and destroy those who want it. Darko, like Spiderman, was portrayed as a reluctant user of his powers who thought he was using them for good, even if he always wasn't.

I also liked how Raimi's script reflected the popularity of the movies themselves, with Parker/Spiderman consumed with his own pride and his own celebrity.

Of course, the Bruce Campbell moment was great, as always. Great comic timing.

Sure, the movie had a lot of things-happening-just-for-the-sake-of-the-movie that the first two did not, but I thought it wrapped up the series well, and gave it an ending. Sadly, movies 4-5-6 are just going to be Spiderman fighting some baddies, without the element of humanity. How are they going to explain why Parker bothers to do this anymore?

 

It's Marko...but otherwise, interesting take. The problem isn't so much forgiving Marko as it is changing who the killer was. Spider-Man's biggest motivator has always been guilt. Suddenly, the guy he let get away isn't the one who killed his uncle. That definitely changes things.