So, I just got back from watching Spiderman 3. I had heard varying bad reports ranging from "I was disappointed" to "Don't waste your money." However, I actually greatly enjoyed the movie. Being the huge comic nerd that I am, I generally pick apart movies in typical fanboy fashion, and there were issues that i had with this one. I'll put the rest in spoiler tags for thos who haven't seen it yet.
Spoiler:
I was a bit disappointed that they brough Gwen Stacy into the story because in the comics, Peter dates her, and she dies before he even meets Mary Jane. I was also a bit annoyed that they didn't kill her. In the whole scene where Spiderman was saving her, I was waiting for him to grab her with the webbing and it break her neck. However, Bryce Dallas Howard is beautiful, so I was ok with her being in the movie. :)
Spoiler:
I thought they did a really good job with Sandman. Flint Marko/William Baker was always the reluctant criminal, and they portrayed that well. I also really liked Thomas hayden Church's potrayal of him.
Spoiler:
One thing that was somewhat corney was the portrayal of Peter when under the influence of the symbiote. However, i think the corney stuff, like him walking down the street pointing at all the girls and such was justified. In the comics, the suit makes Peter really cocky, and alternately a dark, brooding asshole. When he is being cocky, we have to remember that he is still peter Parker, which means that he is still a huge fucking dork. His idea of cool and confident would be quite different that the normal idea of it.
He does seem a bit "emo" at times, but he was very much like that in the comics, and that was stuff written before the modern concept of "emo" even existed, so i am ok with it.
Spoiler:
Some people that I have talked to were annoyed that Harry ended up helping Peter, but as I recall, though my memory is a bit fuzzy, there was a point in the comics where Harry, being a very mentally unstable person, goes good for a while, and is friends with Peter again, only to completely snap again later, being worse than he was before. My only issue with the movie was that they killed him before he could snap again bringing the character full circle. Also, it seems that Venom/ Eddie Brock went out entirely too easy, but I don't think that he is really dead. Topher Grace did a good job playing him, though he looked more like Ultimate Venom than the regular continuity Venom, but then again, they didn't do the whole Secret Wars story line either, so, they sort of mixed the two continuities anyway. I just wish he would have had more screen time than he did.
Overall, there were things that bothered me, but almost all comic movies have stuff that bother me, because I pick them apart with fanboy zeal. The only comic movies that I haven't had a huge list of issues with were Sin City and 300, because they both used the Frank Miller comics for story and in some cases actual storyboards. So, I have become used to seeing everything changed around, and putting that stuff aside, I thought that it was quite a good movie.
05-06-2007 12:39 PM
Randall Flagg
I haven't seen it yet, and I'm not sure if I want too.
The reveiwer I trust at The San Francisco Chronicle said:
Quote:
f the first "Spider-Man" had a script as weak and muddled as the one for "Spider-Man 3," it's hard to believe it ever would have been made. But with the series a worldwide success -- and especially coming off "Spider-Man 2," which was superb -- the filmmakers can afford a weak entry without having to worry about being punished. The only ones who'll be punished are audiences.
"Spider-Man 2" was a textbook example of how to make a sequel: Deepen it, make it funnier, give it more heart and come up with a strong villain and a good story. "Spider Man 3," by contrast, shows how not to make a sequel. The film takes three bad stories and tries to fashion a narrative out of them. It can't be done.
i wish this thread was in my forum so that i could edit the title.
could someone take care of that? it should be Spider-Man.
thanks!
:D
05-06-2007 02:21 PM
Jorge
Gotcha covered, SJ. :)
05-06-2007 02:30 PM
sarajean
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge
Gotcha covered, SJ. :)
:huglove:
thanks, dear whore-hay.
05-06-2007 02:54 PM
Fall of Gilead
I thought the movie was awesome. I totally got a kick out of the part detailed in your spoiler #3.
05-06-2007 03:25 PM
Matt
WOOHOO!!
I am glad its cool, I love the eye candy. We're going to go see it next weekend with the kids, belated birthday present for me.
Thanks so much for the spoiler tags Chris.
05-06-2007 06:17 PM
ZoNeSeeK
I was actually a little put off by the 2nd one so Im not sure about seeing the third one, but people ive spoken to have said its worth it. Maybe I should watch the 2nd one again.
05-07-2007 12:50 AM
LadyGan
I thought it great as well!
05-07-2007 11:31 AM
Patrick
I haven't seen the movie yet, so I wanted to commend OchrisO on his excellent use of the spoiler box (chainsaw?) function.
05-07-2007 03:19 PM
Frunobulax
Glad to see the spoiler tags work. I didn't enjoy the first Spider[-]Man film, and saw the second on on TV and thought it was pretty dull. 3 will be for late-nite TBS viewing.
05-09-2007 08:38 PM
John Blaze
i thought 1 and 2 were awesome, and 3 was ok. The problem with it is the same problem we get with SK movies. They can't take a 12 hour story and make it a 3 hour movie, because the viewers lose alot of important shit. I mean, 3 different villains, trying to fit in their backgrounds, motivations, and parker's love interests storyline, it was just too much to handle.
05-09-2007 11:35 PM
towerguard
I turned to my friend during the movie and said "hey, venom turned Spiderman into Trent Reznor"
I liked the movie quite a bit.
05-10-2007 06:29 AM
Matt
We get to go see it Saturday night in the big new theater they built 50 miles away. :lol:
05-13-2007 02:19 AM
VolsToTheWall
I liked it, but not as much as I did the first two, for the reason that others have stated, just a case of stuffing too much stuff in without the neccessary build-up time.
05-13-2007 05:58 AM
Bethany
For some reason, I thought Peter only had spiderlike abilities--the web spinning, climbing, etc. At what point did he become invincible and be able to withstand those wicked beatings? Last time I tried, spiders squish pretty easily.
05-13-2007 08:09 AM
Aaron
Spiders squish easily when paired against a human's foot, but that would be the equivalent of the Empire State Building stepping on Spiderman. My understanding is that he has all of the powers of the spider, hence his great endurance and agility, as well as his toughness. He would be worthless as a superhero if you could just punch him in the nose and take his lunch money.
05-13-2007 08:13 AM
Matt
:lol:
Yep, spiders can fall from great distances and survive a lot of "scaled" punishment to their little bodies.
We saw it yesterday and I was a bit...ummm...meh.
but I think that may have been the theater because I don't like watching a movie with weird people. :ninja:
**gets out his syringe full of bleach**
05-13-2007 01:24 PM
Bethany
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron
Spiders squish easily when paired against a human's foot, but that would be the equivalent of the Empire State Building stepping on Spiderman. My understanding is that he has all of the powers of the spider, hence his great endurance and agility, as well as his toughness. He would be worthless as a superhero if you could just punch him in the nose and take his lunch money.
Spoiler:
I think Marko's big ass hand made out of the half the crap and dirt of New York would be the equivalent of the Empire State Building falling on you--especially when pounded against you repeatedly.
05-13-2007 08:03 PM
fernandito
Anyone else think that Bryce Dallas Howard is the hottest woman on Earth after seeing her as Gwen Stacy? :wub: x19
05-14-2007 02:16 PM
Matt
Compared to MJ? Hell yeah. MJ looked a little like a crack whore in this one.
02-02-2008 11:06 PM
fernandito
Spider Man 4
Screenwriter James Vanderbilt has confirmed Spider-Man 4!