|
Post by Holierthanthou on May 6, 2007 18:38:08 GMT -5
I saw it today. I was expecting the worst after all the bad comments I'd heard but it was pretty good. I still thought S2 and the original were better. If they'd done a few things different then it could have been BETTER than it's precedents.
|
|
|
Post by Tungsten on May 6, 2007 18:41:03 GMT -5
Spider-Man 3 isn't bad bad as in it completely ruins the series bad *coughX-Men3cough* but after making Spider-Man 2 you just have higher standards for a Spider-Man sequel.
|
|
Chevalier Vi Liberté
Ty Lee
True Shinigami
La lutte d'un v?ritable chevalier n'est jamais fini ...
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by Chevalier Vi Liberté on May 6, 2007 18:48:52 GMT -5
Take a look at the Venom exploding scene. You can clearly see Eddie Brock's skeleton but symbiote appears to crawl away at the end Don't ask me where I got this pic from the end of the movie... img209.imageshack.us/img209/904/skelyik0.png
|
|
|
Post by Everwen45 on May 6, 2007 19:52:51 GMT -5
Oh c'mon guys, if Venom was bad in this movie is because of the lack of development he received. Three villains are way too much. And speaking of Sandman, the part at the end when he's talking to Peter, okay, I know you all gonna hate me for this but, for me the scene wasn't moving, I found it more like ludicrous because I couldn't stop thinking about poor Harry two floors down.
And Bernard the butler, he would have been very useful, two movies ago! They really abuse of the coincidences in this movie.
Back on Venom -which was my reason to watch this film- he could been a good villain with the proper development, but they can't handle all the storylines, specially when you have five to attend. Maybe they should have done the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry thing for one side and then keep just one villain, Venom in this case, if they wanted to keep the symbiote plot.
There's gonna be Spider-Man 4? Seriously?
|
|
Chevalier Vi Liberté
Ty Lee
True Shinigami
La lutte d'un v?ritable chevalier n'est jamais fini ...
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by Chevalier Vi Liberté on May 6, 2007 20:00:32 GMT -5
Oh c'mon guys, if Venom was bad in this movie is because of the lack of development he received. Three villains are way too much. And speaking of Sandman, the part at the end when he's talking to Peter, okay, I know you all gonna hate me for this but, for me the scene wasn't moving, I found it more like ludicrous because I couldn't stop thinking about poor Harry two floors down. And Bernard the butler, he would have been very useful, two movies ago! They really abuse of the coincidences in this movie. Back on Venom -which was my reason to watch this film- he could been a good villain with the proper development, but they can't handle all the storylines, specially when you have five to attend. Maybe they should have done the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry thing for one side and then keep just one villain, Venom in this case, if they wanted to keep the symbiote plot. There's gonna be Spider-Man 4? Seriously? Yes, check the thread I started for it already. ;D
|
|
Seabiscuit
Naga
Named for a Legend
I drive a flying bison, what else do you need to know?
Posts: 2,494
|
Post by Seabiscuit on May 6, 2007 20:13:45 GMT -5
Spoiler Rant . . . . . . . Spider-Man 3 really lacked the solid writing that made SM 2 the best super hero movie I have every seen. The dialogue was cruddy (the second fight between Harry and Peter) and the transitions of scenes just felt jagged. They had to rely too much on deux ex machina to get the ball rolling for the next scene (can anyone say random butler). The Sandman story was lame, with retroactive involving him to Uncle Ben's murder to his bipolar personality from caring father to psychotic monster. Venom just shouldn't have been added to the Spider-Man movies in the first place (and I pray to god they will never add Carnage). But on the up-side Bruce Cambell was hilarious and essentially stole the scene he was in. Sorry dude, I gotta disagree. I think it was way better than the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by PureSimplicity on May 6, 2007 21:06:59 GMT -5
^ Same here. I just didn't really like SM2 as much because I just thought that Dr. Octopus (seriously, what's with all the lame names? Venom was a good name though) wasn't really an interesting villian. He was going all "my calculations were wrong! I need to get a bigger crystal thingy!" For what? The company he works for is ruined, his wife is dead, he's wanted by the police, and he's unemployed. I think he'd be more infamous than famous if he was even remotely successful.
SPOILERS
I was so happy when Harry joined in on the fight. Harry really should've lived, then he and Pete could be a dynamic duo. Not as much stress for them. Harry could work the day shift and spiderman can work the nite shift as superheroes. I would've liked it better if MJ died instead of Harry. He always was my fave character. The movie would've been sooo much better without Sandman and had Venom in it instead.
As for the character that "died" in SM3, I'd have to say that it's probably Venom. Either that, or Harry's spirit lives on or something. That's kinda lame, but I'll keep my fingers crossed for Harry.
|
|
|
Post by Tungsten on May 6, 2007 22:55:24 GMT -5
Oh c'mon guys, if Venom was bad in this movie is because of the lack of development he received. Three villains are way too much. And speaking of Sandman, the part at the end when he's talking to Peter, okay, I know you all gonna hate me for this but, for me the scene wasn't moving, I found it more like ludicrous because I couldn't stop thinking about poor Harry two floors down. And Bernard the butler, he would have been very useful, two movies ago! They really abuse of the coincidences in this movie. Back on Venom -which was my reason to watch this film- he could been a good villain with the proper development, but they can't handle all the storylines, specially when you have five to attend. Maybe they should have done the Peter/Mary Jane/Harry thing for one side and then keep just one villain, Venom in this case, if they wanted to keep the symbiote plot. There's gonna be Spider-Man 4? Seriously? I agree with you on the Sandman, for one how the heck did he know that Peter and Ben were related? And if he was able to put the pieces together sooner then why did he attack him instead of feeling guilty? As for Venom for me he's just eye candy rather than a good villian (Carnage is more so). He just looks cool/all style no substance type of character. If I was forced to use Venom I would use the Ultimate Spider-Man version of the character, that way they could at least link it to Peter's father and give him some depth when fighting him.
|
|
Pleading Eyes
Kyoshi Mai
I feel violated... and crispy
Posts: 2,327
|
Post by Pleading Eyes on May 6, 2007 23:29:57 GMT -5
I'm probably going to regret this... but here is goes.
I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and say I actually enjoyed the movie.
Was it as good as the last two? Nowhere near. But did it accomplish what it set out to do? Absolutely.
Film one had a fantastic villain, and film two's was pretty amazing too. This is probably where Spidey-3 is most lacking. Like many have said, juggling three villains leaves much to be desired for character development. But concidering they DID put in three villains, I think ti was pretty well done. We get a sense for Eddie Brock, we understand Sandman's "not quite bad-guy persona", without feeling as if the characters have COMPLETELY been dropped into the story at random.
Personally I wanted to see more Venom, since Sandman has never been an especially interesting villain. But it seems to me that not much emphasis was placed on Venom because he'll be back. (Yeah, he's nto dead. You can see the black goo moving after the explosion. Geez, you'd think Peter Parker would have the sense to sweep the stuff up, not just leave it lying around.)
Sandman's connection to Ben Parker and the added element of his sick daughter actually gave a lot more to the character than the original Spiderman story line ever offered. Like I said, Sandman was never very interesting. At least this way he was somewhat of a sympathetic character.
But most importantly, even if these characters felt smooshed in, they served their purpose; to develop Peter Parker's character.
Because, let's face it. Peter has been completely overshadowed by his kick-butt enemies these last two movies. Spidey 3 was focused more on him, on the duality of each man, even those that are supposedly inherently good.
It worked. We got more a sense for Peter, for who was behind the nerd who won the "bit by a radio active animal" lottery.
My biggest gripes with the movie? Mary Jane. Her singing was dubbed by another actress, but the voice they found could NOT have been a worse fit for Kirsten Dunst. *headdesk* I wanted to sing over the movie whenever MJ started singing, just because it would seem more realistic that way.
And Harry dying seemed unnecessary to me. I guess they wanted drama at the end, but McGuire's cry at the end earned a laugh from the audience. Not exactly the emotional response aimed for, I'm sure.
Yes, yes. The butler was a deus ex machina. It's a Marvel Comics movie. What do you expect?
But wait, I'm supposed to be defending the movie, huh?
Okay, overall, the movie was extremely entertaining. Even if you didn't like the movie, you have to admit it had its moments when you stopped scoffing and were leaning forward in your seat. I know I was, and I'm HIGHLY critical of movies.
Though, since I knew the fate of Gwen Stacey in the original story, I was disappointed when I waited the entire movie for her to die, and they never delivered.
...dang
|
|
Chevalier Vi Liberté
Ty Lee
True Shinigami
La lutte d'un v?ritable chevalier n'est jamais fini ...
Posts: 4,299
|
Post by Chevalier Vi Liberté on May 6, 2007 23:41:41 GMT -5
I'm probably going to regret this... but here is goes. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and say I actually enjoyed the movie. Was it as good as the last two? Nowhere near. But did it accomplish what it set out to do? Absolutely. Film one had a fantastic villain, and film two's was pretty amazing too. This is probably where Spidey-3 is most lacking. Like many have said, juggling three villains leaves much to be desired for character development. But concidering they DID put in three villains, I think ti was pretty well done. We get a sense for Eddie Brockman, we understand Sandman's "not quite bad-guy persona", without feeling as if the characters have COMPLETELY been dropped into the story at random. Personally I wanted to see more Venom, since Sandman has never been an especially interesting villain. But it seems to me that not much emphasis was placed on Venom because he'll be back. (Yeah, he's nto dead. You can see the black goo moving after the explosion. Geez, you'd think Peter Parker would have the sense to sweep the stuff up, not just leave it lying around.) Sandman's connection to Ben Parker and the added element of his sick daughter actually gave a lot more to the character than the original Spiderman story line ever offered. Like I said, Sandman was never very interesting. At least this way he was somewhat of a sympathetic character. But most importantly, even if these characters felt smooshed in, they served their purpose; to develop Peter Parker's character. Because, let's face it. Peter has been completely overshadowed by his kick-butt enemies these last two movies. Spidey 3 was focused more on him, on the duality of each man, even those that are supposedly inherently good. It worked. We got more a sense for Peter, for who was behind the nerd who won the "bit by a radio active animal" lottery. My biggest gripes with the movie? Mary Jane. Her singing was dubbed by another actress, but the voice they found could NOT have been a worse fit for Kirsten Dunst. *headdesk* I wanted to sing over the movie whenever MJ started singing, just because it would seem more realistic that way. And Harry dying seemed unnecessary to me. I guess they wanted drama at the end, but McGuire's cry at the end earned a laugh from the audience. Not exactly the emotional response aimed for, I'm sure. Yes, yes. The butler was a deus ex machina. It's a Marvel Comics movie. What do you expect? But wait, I'm supposed to be defending the movie, huh? Okay, overall, the movie was extremely entertaining. Even if you didn't like the movie, you have to admit it had its moments when you stopped scoffing and were leaning forward in your seat. I know I was, and I'm HIGHLY critical of movies. Though, since I knew the fate of Gwen Stacey in the original story, I was disappointed when I waited the entire movie for her to die, and they never delivered. ...dang A lot of people enjoyed the movie. I did so don't worry about it.
|
|
|
Post by Tungsten on May 6, 2007 23:48:12 GMT -5
I'm probably going to regret this... but here is goes. I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment and say I actually enjoyed the movie. Was it as good as the last two? Nowhere near. But did it accomplish what it set out to do? Absolutely. Film one had a fantastic villain, and film two's was pretty amazing too. This is probably where Spidey-3 is most lacking. Like many have said, juggling three villains leaves much to be desired for character development. But concidering they DID put in three villains, I think ti was pretty well done. We get a sense for Eddie Brockman, we understand Sandman's "not quite bad-guy persona", without feeling as if the characters have COMPLETELY been dropped into the story at random. Personally I wanted to see more Venom, since Sandman has never been an especially interesting villain. But it seems to me that not much emphasis was placed on Venom because he'll be back. (Yeah, he's nto dead. You can see the black goo moving after the explosion. Geez, you'd think Peter Parker would have the sense to sweep the stuff up, not just leave it lying around.) Sandman's connection to Ben Parker and the added element of his sick daughter actually gave a lot more to the character than the original Spiderman story line ever offered. Like I said, Sandman was never very interesting. At least this way he was somewhat of a sympathetic character. But most importantly, even if these characters felt smooshed in, they served their purpose; to develop Peter Parker's character. Because, let's face it. Peter has been completely overshadowed by his kick-butt enemies these last two movies. Spidey 3 was focused more on him, on the duality of each man, even those that are supposedly inherently good. It worked. We got more a sense for Peter, for who was behind the nerd who won the "bit by a radio active animal" lottery. My biggest gripes with the movie? Mary Jane. Her singing was dubbed by another actress, but the voice they found could NOT have been a worse fit for Kirsten Dunst. *headdesk* I wanted to sing over the movie whenever MJ started singing, just because it would seem more realistic that way. And Harry dying seemed unnecessary to me. I guess they wanted drama at the end, but McGuire's cry at the end earned a laugh from the audience. Not exactly the emotional response aimed for, I'm sure. Yes, yes. The butler was a deus ex machina. It's a Marvel Comics movie. What do you expect? But wait, I'm supposed to be defending the movie, huh? Okay, overall, the movie was extremely entertaining. Even if you didn't like the movie, you have to admit it had its moments when you stopped scoffing and were leaning forward in your seat. I know I was, and I'm HIGHLY critical of movies. Though, since I knew the fate of Gwen Stacey in the original story, I was disappointed when I waited the entire movie for her to die, and they never delivered. ...dang I also thought the movie was enjoyable and it is a fun movie to watch but I know it could be a lot better. I'm a huge huge Spider-Man fan, have been all my life. Don't mind me I'm just nerd ranting.
|
|
Pleading Eyes
Kyoshi Mai
I feel violated... and crispy
Posts: 2,327
|
Post by Pleading Eyes on May 7, 2007 0:41:44 GMT -5
I also thought the movie was enjoyable and it is a fun movie to watch but I know it could be a lot better. I'm a huge huge Spider-Man fan, have been all my life. Don't mind me I'm just nerd ranting. No, I know what you mean. I've always been a Spidey fan myself. He was always my favorite superhero as a kid. (He used to have the cheesiest best one-liners for his enemies too. XD) Don't get me wrong, I had plenty of issues with the movie. But I think it got bashed a lot more than it deserved. It was a good flick, especially as far as Comic-turned-film movies go.
|
|
|
Post by Tungsten on May 7, 2007 0:46:52 GMT -5
It was a good flick, especially as far as Comic-turned-film movies go. Yes you are correct madd-um and circle gets the square (is reminded of Hulk movie)
|
|
Melis
Long Feng
hay baby wanna get away on my bison?
Posts: 3,293
|
Post by Melis on May 7, 2007 1:19:36 GMT -5
I loved the movie, I thought it was pretty awesome despite all the negative reviews. I went into the theater expecting a horrible movie, but I came out of it satisfied and very happy that I got to see it on the big screen. I loved Venom, not much Sandman. He was okay, but meh. Topher Grace stole the movie, IMO he was wonderful and did a very good job.
|
|
|
Post by appacatbus on May 7, 2007 1:35:29 GMT -5
K, i just saw it online.
My opinion: Not as big a let down as i was expecting, but certainly no Spiderman 2.
Pros: Bruce Campbell
Cons: @$$hole Peter was the most ridiculus thing i've ever seen, and the villains were handled terribly.
Venom was in it for, what? two minutes? All though that may be a good thing seeing as what a crappy villain he was. Sandman had potential, but lack of screentime ruined him. Also the fact that both villains were so unrealistic hurt the movie. Green Goblin and Dr. Octopus were just pretty much enhanced humans, but in 3 we have SPidey fighting an animated pile of black slime that came from outerspace, and a giant monster made of sand.
|
|