SPIDERMAN 3... OH YEAH!!! (the face <== is Venom)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
^must be at least one. My broinlaw only watches the good stuff.
 
I thought it was pretty darn good !! :bow:

But, it also did seem a little boring during some of the 'sappy' love scenes ... the 'action-packed' battles were much more interesting ...
let alone exciting !! :up:

I wanna see Spiderman and Spiderman 2 now ... I missed those when they came out !! :tsk:
 
Just got back from Spiderman 3. I thought it was a good movie. I actually really enjoyed it. I can't believe that some people said thay HATED it. There are some terrible movies out there and this one is NOT one of them. There was tons of action, the CGI was amazing (especially the first sandman sequence), but there was just too much packed into the movie which was the flaw.

I try to go into movies without huge expectatioins. I tend to enjoy them MUCH more. If you have not seen it yet, go without the expectations. I think you will enjoy the show!
 
I know there are people who genuinely enjoyed the movie like people who have posted here. But there are many people who didn't like it and the critics are divided as well. To me, this fact shows that the film is not a great movie. Truly amazing films generally get rave reviews from the entire audience with a small minority not liking the movie.

And success at the box office does not mean a movie is the cat's arse. Lotsa crappy movies have done well at the box office. But I am happy for those who liked the movie.
 
I think that in the context of a superhero/comic book movie, it's definitely great. In the context of an action flick it has great sequences and special effects.

As an overall movie, it has the potential to be great, but is weighed down by the same cheese and melodrama that the original had.
 
LemonMacPhisto said:
I think that in the context of a superhero/comic book movie, it's definitely great. In the context of an action flick it has great sequences and special effects.

As an overall movie, it has the potential to be great, but is weighed down by the same cheese and melodrama that the original had.

Sounds good to me.

I have to admit when I decide to watch a film I put them into two categories. Sponge and Hmmm. Sponge movies require you to sit there and watch, that's it, don't think, just absorb the action or potty humour and respond with gasps or laughter. Hmmm films require you to pay attention to details and analyze the story and what is happening and they grab a piece of your heart sometimes. If you go to the bathroom during a Hmmm film, you might miss something incredibly important to the plot while missing a few minutes of a Sponge film is usually no big deal. But there are good and bad Sponge and Hmmm films.

And like someone mentioned, my mindset before watching the movie makes a movie better or worse. I knew Dude, Where's My Car would be a stupid movie and it lived up to my expectations and it was fun. Whereas I had high hopes for Hannibal and it blew.
 
I like the Sponge and Hmm movie idea alot. I just break movies up into the genres, I guess it's similar to yours.
 
Just saw it yesterday. 30 minutes of awesome. 1 hour of 'meh, okay.' 30 minutes of 'WTF?'

It looks like we haven't gotten into full reviews yet, so I'll save that. (I can launch into a huge comic book dork review, but I'll refrain :wink: ). A year or two ago when I'd heard that they were going to have three villains (then it was going to be Green Goblin II, Venom & the Lizard), I was afraid they were trying to do too much. And that's what hurts this movie. Sandman was pretty much pointless. The Venom/black costume storyline deserve its own movie. Green Goblin II could almost deserve its own movie, but would be too boring to watch after having one whole GG movie. What they ended up with was that none of these things were fully fleshed out. The storyline that suffered the most is perhaps the relationship arc. It almost happened the way it did because it had to for the plot, but they didn't bother to really flesh it out in the way they could have (or did in the previous films). The final scene is so unsatisfying--and not because it's not entirely what you want to see, but because it's so...incomplete.

In the end, it wasn't a "bad" movie. It just didn't live up to the standard set by the first one. And that's the problem. LemonMacPhisto----I'd agree that it's not bad in terms of superhero/comic book movies in general, when you're lumping things like Hellboy, Ghost Rider, and other crappy things into the mix. But if you only consider the quality ones---Batman Begins and, most especially, the first two Spider-man flicks---I don't think it really compares.

The best things about the film are the Venom scenes, some of the relationship stuff, and the trailers.
 
Gotta disagree with the fact that Spiderman 1 was better than 3. No way. Spiderman 1 is almost painful to watch now, I find.
 
Any movie with Willem Dafoe wins because it had Willem Dafoe. One of the members of the LMP All-Ugly Team.
 
Lancemc said:
Gotta disagree with the fact that Spiderman 1 was better than 3. No way. Spiderman 1 is almost painful to watch now, I find.


Part of the reason 1 is hard to watch now is that you have to go through the whole origin story all over again before you get to the good stuff, and that can get old. But the first one was great, if for nothing else than the amazing novelty of seeing Spidey swing through the sky with great effects on a big screen & done well. Besides the awesomeness that is Venom, 3 had nothing more to offer. It's hard to recreate the novelty....you can add cooler effects (and all that 3 had, again besides Venom, was Spidey shooting web pellets..a treat for fans, but one that got old), or you can add an awesome story, which 3 didn't flesh out.

Basically, Spider-man 1 is to Spider-man 3 as Jurassic Park is to Jurassic Park: Lost World. A couple of cool scenes in the sequel, but without the magic of the original.
 
3 just came out on DVD, and it looks like there might be a 4

ew.com

A writers' strike may be upon us, but that hasn't slowed Sony's plans for Spider-Man 4. James Vanderbilt, the writer behind David Fincher's gritty thriller Zodiac, has been hired to pen the script for the new Spidey installment. (Vanderbilt may not be able to write during the strike, but the WGA can't stop him from thinking, right?) It's unknown whether Sam Raimi will direct the four-quel, but he's likely to be involved in some way. The studio is scheduling the film for a 2010 release.
 
Personally, I only liked the second one. I think the whole enterprise (save for the comic itself) is extremely overrated, from the acting to the subpar special effects to the screenplays.

Raimi is a shell of his former self. Has anyone here ever seen Darkman? Now that was a fucking comic book movie. Better than these corporate cash-ins.

I thought the X-Men films were better as well; and while the Spidey films may have been envisioned as some kind of trilogy, X-Men actually felt like one, even with Brett Ratner's takeover of X3.

Whatever. The Dark Knight is going to pwn all of these films anyway.
 
Darkman was awesome.

Spiderman 2 is one of my favorite superhero films, if not my favorite, but I really don't like either the first one of the third one much anymore.
 
Darkman is excellent, but my favorite non-Evil Dead Raimi is still The Quick and the Dead.
 
Back
Top Bottom