Trevor Goodchild
Civilian
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2003
- Messages
- 960
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
double post
Spider-Man might still forgive him, but he would never just let some wanted criminal walk free. That just seems out of character for someone like Spider-Man, although Sandman isn't necessarily as bad Green Goblin or Doc Ock.How was it out of character? The theme of the movie was about turning away from revenge and embracing forgiveness. Once he learned that lesson, Spider-Man displayed that quality and forgave Sandman despite all his wrong doing. Thats what forgiveness is all about.
I'll give you this one. I'm not really sure where I was going with this.Uncle Ben yes but who are the many others? If you mean the cops and occasional innocent bystanders, then the movie is done with such subtlety that the viewer can take it in which ever way they want - from minor injuries, to permanent paralysis, to instant death. Its this kind of ambiguity that make all those other incidents hard to argue.
True, but he didn't really kill anyone while he was under the influence of the symbiote. He wasn't in control of his actions until after hitting MJ. Sandman knew exactly what he was doing. He accidentally killed a man, but either way you look at it's still murder.Well, first of all, if youre gonna argue that Sandman seriously injured and possibly killed people, then so can I say that Spider-Man injured and possibly killed people while he was under the influence of the symbiote. Not to mention he genuinely wanted to kill Flint and though he did, with no regret and with satisfaction in fact, if only it wasnt for his sand powers.
Remember that scene, Spidery admits it himself: Ive done terrible things too.
I'm sorry, but I disagree here. What has Spider-Man done to deserve being thrown in jail?Therefore, if Sandman belongs in jail, so does Spider-Man.
Otherwise, if Flint Marko would just give himself up afterwards, it would invalidate the whole forgiveness theme. So Spider-Man granted him a second chance and he should just blow it away by turning himself in? Theres no point in that, since in that case Spidey wouldnt have to forgive him at all. Instead he could just beat the crap out of Flint and deliver him to the authorities himself.
I'm talking about the Spider-Man who would beat the **** out of his enemies then leave them for the police. I'm getting tired of all these sympathetic villains to be honest. I understand there was a moral lesson, but I just didn't buy it.Define real Spider-Man.
Again, if he wouldnt, then there would be no moral lesson to teach.
Towards the end, Magneto declared war on the human race and had already killed some people. Once he gets cured, it shows him outside playing chess in the park. Shouldn't he be in jail?How? What ending? Please elaborate.
I did smile and chuckle occasionally, Ill give you that.
Look, I devilishly thought to myself: Hehe, that guy is soo evil! I like it! just like any other dedicated movie goer. I liked Heaths performance. But as for being impressed by it, Ive seen other movies with the same type of character already. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys instantly comes to mind.
Ah...I see. No harm done. There's nothing wrong with that though. I personally think TDK is overrated as well.The only thing in SM3 that is better than TDK is the Sandman ending. Im not saying that I place SM3 above TDK in quality. Thats a different story.
I think it just comes off as lazy. I know the other villains had a connection with Peter, but here I don't see why Raimi had to go in this direction.Observing Raimis usual trilogy patterns, I dont count on him doing anything of the sort that I have in mind after SM3, especially looking at what he did with SM2 after SM1. But currently I find Spider-Man and Sandmans relationship to be the most original hero-villain idea Ive ever seen.
Throw away comic book faithfulness and think about this for a moment:
Sandman is the only supervillain who ever gave Peter Parker the most grief and he forgave him for it!
I suppose he gave him a second chance, but who's to say he'll turn to crime again after being let go? After his daughter is healthy again, what then? Spider-Man is certainly taking a huge risk here.By NYs perspective, Flint Marko is still a very serious threat to the city and the authorities would still want him hunted down. This way forcing him to be constantly on the run. And the only one who could actually catch him simply wont do it. Spider-Man gave a second chance to Sandman and thats equivalent to a promise. It would go against his own standards and turn him into a real dick, if he broke it. So now theyre both at a dilemma - Flints only way to stop all this is to give himself up, leaving no chance to see his daughter for possibly the last few days she has to live, and Spider-Man is torn apart - should he do what the people ask him to do, since hes there to serve and protect them, or should he keep strong to his own moral convictions? What do you think the city would think of their hero in that situation?
I agree with this.I dont see Batman and the Joker ever having such a dynamic.
Yeah, isnt that a phrase often thrown around these parts just for void appearances.
But if you really mean it, thanks, I appreciate it a lot, there arent many left that do.
I liked it, but wasn't blown away by it. It's flawed, but enjoyable. I still prefer the first two, but this one was is decent. If Raimi was given more control, it could have been even better than the others.What did you think of Spider-Man 3 yourself?
The same thing I thought when I saw all those women screaming right into the camera in SM2: "Oh, shut up!"Trevor what do you think about the part where those kids said "wicked cool".
clichéHow about the part where MJ breaks up with Peter, and peter starts breakin into tears.
Completely justified.How about the part where MJ gets mad cause spiderman kissed gwen and she suddenly turns into a ***** at the restraunt?
(don’t be too offended by the sarcasm)Spider-Man might still forgive him, but he would never just let some wanted criminal walk free. That just seems out of character for someone like Spider-Man, although Sandman isn't necessarily as bad Green Goblin or Doc Ock.
You missed the point of what I said in my previous post.True, but he didn't really kill anyone while he was under the influence of the symbiote. He wasn't in control of his actions until after hitting MJ.
And Spider-Man wanted to commit murder, thought he did, was fine with it and, in fact, he enjoyed it. Just because Sandman survived, doesn’t make it ok. It’s the thought that counts, you know. Either way you look at it, it’s still murder.Sandman knew exactly what he was doing. He accidentally killed a man, but either way you look at it's still murder.
I'm sorry, but I disagree here. What has Spider-Man done to deserve being thrown in jail
Every hero has to practice self-restraint.I'm talking about the Spider-Man who would beat the **** out of his enemies then leave them for the police.
I know what you mean. I can’t stand them either. But what makes me like Sandman’s situation, as opposed to Doc Ock’s for example, is the controversy behind it, just like the ending of SM1.I'm getting tired of all these sympathetic villains to be honest. I understand there was a moral lesson, but I just didn't buy it.
He fled the scene and was lying low?Towards the end, Magneto declared war on the human race and had already killed some people. Once he gets cured, it shows him outside playing chess in the park. Shouldn't he be in jail?
Really? Do tell.I personally think TDK is overrated as well.
Granted it could’ve been any other b-rate villain. But Sam went for a message. And I like a good story over a faithful adaptation.I think it just comes off as lazy. I know the other villains had a connection with Peter, but here I don't see why Raimi had to go in this direction.
Exactly! That’s another point of forgiveness.I suppose he gave him a second chance, but who's to say he'll turn to crime again after being let go? After his daughter is healthy again, what then? Spider-Man is certainly taking a huge risk here.
Pity, but oh well. Take care then.Anyways, I won't be doing the multiple quotes thing after this. I hope you understand. I'm too lazy.
Bu you guys are missing the point why Raimi did all that - he wanted to tell a theme and Sandman was an essential part of it. Venom was the one that shouldn’t have been in there.
(dont be too offended by the sarcasm)
Spidey: Oh, sure, I forgive you Sandman. But youre still going down sucka! SLAM!
Dont you think its at least a little bit of a dick move? Remember my point about invalidation.
You missed the point of what I said in my previous post.
How do you know he didnt kill anyone?
What about all those pictures of black suit Spidey mercilessly brutalizing all those thugs?
No matter what really happened, Sandman and Spider-Man had an equal violent impact on people.
And the symbiote influence didnt stop Peter from taking the blame for it afterwards anyway.
And Spider-Man wanted to commit murder, thought he did, was fine with it and, in fact, he enjoyed it. Just because Sandman survived, doesnt make it ok. Its the thought that counts, you know. Either way you look at it, its still murder.
If you dont want to make an exception for Sandman because of an accident, nor there should be made one for Spider-Man because of an influence.
Every hero has to practice self-restraint.
I know what you mean. I cant stand them either. But what makes me like Sandmans situation, as opposed to Doc Ocks for example, is the controversy behind it, just like the ending of SM1.
I guess thats what it takes to win me over with a sympathetic villain.
"With great power, comes great responsibility." That's what Spider-Man is all about. Letting his uncle's killer go is what I call being irresponsible to be honest. Magneto wasn't lying low. I'm sure everyone kissed and made up by the end, so the result is Magneto playing chess in the park. It's silly and doesn't make any sense. This applies to Sandman as well. It doesn't matter if he was trying to save his daughter. He still caused a lot of problems that he should pay for. That's why most people hate this movie. Besides the evil Peter scenes, they feel Sandman was underused and I agree. He should have been given a lot more screentime. I blame Avi Arad for forcing Raimi to put Venom in.He fled the scene and was lying low?
That has nothing to do with SM3. They dont even have the same moral lessons.
Really? Do tell.
Granted it couldve been any other b-rate villain. But Sam went for a message. And I like a good story over a faithful adaptation.
I suppose so. This part of the film just bothered me. Maybe I need to watch it again or something.Exactly! Thats another point of forgiveness.
Spider-Man doesnt know. Nobody knows except Flint Marko himself.
The ending was about one particular situation. Theres no telling what will happen beyond that but as far as Uncle Bens death, Sandman deserved that break.
That was the point of the movie, take it or leave it.Sandman was not needed to tell that theme... plus the forgiveness theme was lame, sandman just dragged it down.
The only forgiveness theme needed was with Harry and Peter forgiving himself, sandman was just dead weight.
If you care, you can check my previous two posts to answer that fully.Sandman killed his friggin uncle and peter let him go? accident or tormented villain or not, the guy chose many of his bad actions, and the spider-man i know would not let him go.
There was no need to get so rude.dude are you seriously that delusional to not see why so many think this movie was a major major disappointment?
I didnt say anything about a symbiote.The Symbiote story was a HUGE plot of the film, infact arguably the main plot. It's about Peter battling himself and his inner demons.
If it wasnt for Sandmans character, who would Peter have enough initiative to want to kill? Thats his role.The movie was also about the responsibility of reaping what you sew, peter dealt with his own fallout caused by his actions in the black suit, and for the irresponsibility which lead to the symbiote finding brock.
Hehe, thats fine.Alright I lied. I'm going to continue. I'm the one who started this after all. t:
You have a point here, but it's not like had to fight him. "Sandman I forgive you, but you're a wanted man still. We'll help your daughter in anyway, but you must pay the price for all the damage you've done." That's all I'm saying.
There are no guarantees that Spider-Man, of all people, could help his daughter in exchange for his surrender.He didn't really have to fight with Sandman after Venom was taken care of. They could have come to an agreement or something, but I can see why Spider-Man let him go.
The better word for it would be unconventionality. Peter didnt get the girl at the end, like the usual cliché. In fact he resented her for very good reasons. SM2 ruined that.What was the controversy behind SM1's ending? I didn't hear about that.
Well, we already talked about this. Theres nothing more I can add to it."With great power, comes great responsibility." That's what Spider-Man is all about. Letting his uncle's killer go is what I call being irresponsible to be honest.
Why are you sure of that? Theres no evidence to support it. And since it couldve gone either way, isnt the more logical thing to do is to assume the way that makes more sense?Magneto wasn't lying low. I'm sure everyone kissed and made up by the end, so the result is Magneto playing chess in the park. It's silly and doesn't make any sense.
He made some bad choices for sure, thats why hes the villain.This applies to Sandman as well. It doesn't matter if he was trying to save his daughter. He still caused a lot of problems that he should pay for. That's why most people hate this movie.
I agree.Besides the evil Peter scenes, they feel Sandman was underused and I agree. He should have been given a lot more screentime. I blame Avi Arad for forcing Raimi to put Venom in.
Check it out. Maybe youll change your mind now that I gave you a different perspective.I suppose so. This part of the film just bothered me. Maybe I need to watch it again or something.
Just because it was in the movie doesn't mean sandman needed to be in it as well. we got the point between peter and harry... and it makes more sense to just have them. why bring in a random third?That was the point of the movie, take it or leave it.
look i know what characters were used for, and i get the gist of them fitting a theme, but sandman was dead weight. And the movie would have been perfectly fine with that. He didn't ADD anything, thus making him dead weight.There was no need to get so rude.
I do understand why people dont like this movie and I also have a pretty good idea of why each character was used. Im only trying to enlighten you on that.
Brock and venom wasn't pushed though, he just wasnt expanded upon enough. But he fit in far more then sandman did, considering peter was responsible for his creation.I didnt say anything about a symbiote.
I was talking about Brock/Venom.
well the symbiote story in all incarnations never needed peter to be "so angry with someone" that he kills... the symbiote did all that for him... made him beat his villains to near death. why add that mess of a convoluted story? esp when it makes sandman out to be spidey's top villain?If it wasnt for Sandmans character, who would Peter have enough initiative to want to kill? Thats his role.
sam wanted sandman for the special FX.. and he was a moron during production. I have a friend who was working in the art department and witnessed it first hand. Most of the art department was enraged and confused at how horrible the movie was turning out to be. But they did there job, and got paid. I think you got it backward... Venom was peters rage incarnate. and was created from that rage. Sandman was not needed with his forced story.Sam wanted Sandman. Venom was forced on him by others. He has no involvement with Peters revenge-forgiveness theme whatsoever. Remove his character and nothing changes. He was just the end result.
The biggest thing I didn't like about Sandman was the same thing many others didn't care for,the story being changed around so that he was now Ben's killer. As many people have mentioned,it changed the whole dynamic of Spidey's origin. Captain Stacy calls Peter and his aunt in to his office and says,"Um,yeah. I think Flint Marko killed Ben Parker,but we didn't really know about it untill now. All I can say is...oops!" I mean,c'mon. lol
With Marko,are we supposed to hate him or feel sorry for him? His story(like Brock's)was never really explored and left a lot to be desired.
The whole revenge/forgiveness theme that was needed could've easily been put upon Harry's shoulders. Again,Harry could've taken over the mantle of the "sympathetic" villain that Sandman tried to be. As a character,I don't think Marko fit into the theme of the film like Harry and Brock did. Both Harry(New Goblin) and Brock(Venom) were filled with darkness and revenge. The major difference between the two is that Eddie let his darkness destroy him,Harry didn't. Sandman,as I saw,had no such darkness inside him. As he put it,"I'm not a bad person. I've just had back luck." He really didn't fit,imo.
I think most people wanted to see a dark Spider-man film. A film that would put a Spider-man vs. Venom battle at the forefront. That's how the marketing people at Sony made it seem. All the ads showed the symbiote or black suit Spidey and they really played up Venom being in the film(although,known to many of us at the time it would only be for 8 minutes).
I liked Church as Marko and if this were another Spidey film I would've liked to have seen more of him,but I was far more fascinated with Peter's battle with the black suit and the birth of Venom,and what made Eddie Brock so twisted.
That was Raimis initial idea.Just because it was in the movie doesn't mean sandman needed to be in it as well.
Harry didnt have that big of an impact as Sandman did.we got the point between peter and harry... and it makes more sense to just have them. why bring in a random third?
He did - as I said, he was the whole reason for Peters revenge.look i know what characters were used for, and i get the gist of them fitting a theme, but sandman was dead weight. And the movie would have been perfectly fine with that. He didn't ADD anything, thus making him dead weight.
He did fit. But thats not the argument.Brock and venom wasn't pushed though, he just wasnt expanded upon enough. But he fit in far more then sandman did, considering peter was responsible for his creation.
Why not?well the symbiote story in all incarnations never needed peter to be "so angry with someone" that he kills... the symbiote did all that for him... made him beat his villains to near death. why add that mess of a convoluted story? esp when it makes sandman out to be spidey's top villain?
The movie itself shows that thats not true.sam wanted sandman for the special FX.. and he was a moron during production.
Enraged by what? Enraged? Jesus! Its just a movie!I have a friend who was working in the art department and witnessed it first hand. Most of the art department was enraged and confused at how horrible the movie was turning out to be. But they did there job, and got paid.
As I said, he was the result of every thing that was going on in the movie. And thats fine. But Sandman was directly involved in it.I think you got it backward... Venom was peters rage incarnate. and was created from that rage. Sandman was not needed with his forced story.
I dont like people changing crucial parts of their own story with ret-cons myself.The biggest thing I didn't like about Sandman was the same thing many others didn't care for,the story being changed around so that he was now Ben's killer. As many people have mentioned,it changed the whole dynamic of Spidey's origin. Captain Stacy calls Peter and his aunt in to his office and says,"Um,yeah. I think Flint Marko killed Ben Parker,but we didn't really know about it untill now. All I can say is...oops!" I mean,c'mon. lol
Why does it have to be so black and white?With Marko,are we supposed to hate him or feel sorry for him?
Thats true.His story(like Brock's)was never really explored and left a lot to be desired.
As I asked a few sentences above - what would Peter need to forgive Harry for?The whole revenge/forgiveness theme that was needed could've easily been put upon Harry's shoulders.
Harry, like Ock, wasnt really sympathetic. He was misguided.Again,Harry could've taken over the mantle of the "sympathetic" villain that Sandman tried to be. As a character,I don't think Marko fit into the theme of the film like Harry and Brock did. Both Harry(New Goblin) and Brock(Venom) were filled with darkness and revenge. The major difference between the two is that Eddie let his darkness destroy him,Harry didn't. Sandman,as I saw,had no such darkness inside him. As he put it,"I'm not a bad person. I've just had back luck." He really didn't fit,imo.
Hmm, I think you need to rephrase that a little bit. It sounds like youre basing fan expectations on the marketing campaign.I think most people wanted to see a dark Spider-man film. A film that would put a Spider-man vs. Venom battle at the forefront. That's how the marketing people at Sony made it seem. All the ads showed the symbiote or black suit Spidey and they really played up Venom being in the film(although,known to many of us at the time it would only be for 8 minutes).
That was Raimis initial idea.
Harry didnt have that big of an impact as Sandman did.
Ill take a ret-con over a forced break up any day.
He did - as I said, he was the whole reason for Peters revenge.
He did fit. But thats not the argument.
As far as sacrifices are concerned, hes the best candidate to go.
Imagine this for a moment:
Take away Brocks character, and what does it change in the movie other than the Bugle plot line?
Take away Sandman, and who should Peter/Spidey concentrate his anger on? Harry? Why? Peter has no reason to hate Harry.
Why not?
And thats not a convoluted story faaar from it.
It has a reason, again, Raimis theme.
The movie itself shows that thats not true.
Enraged by what? Enraged? Jesus! Its just a movie!
Just because you or somebody else doesnt like something, doesnt invalidate the importance of that thing.
You dont like Sandmans involvement. Fine. But you have no basis to call him useless.
As I said, he was the result of every thing that was going on in the movie. And thats fine. But Sandman was directly involved in it.
I dont like people changing crucial parts of their own story with ret-cons myself.
But with the idea that Raimi wanted to convey, the end justifies the means.
Antipathy towards the rewrite is not a valid point against the importance of Sandmans story.
Not that it seems like youre defending spideyboys argument
Why does it have to be so black and white?
Thats true.
As I asked a few sentences above - what would Peter need to forgive Harry for?
Their story is about Peter trying to reason with Harry, while Harry tries to have his revenge on him.
If Peter was to take revenge on Harry for whatever reason, it would turn the whole plot around and destroy the initially established idea behind it.
Brock/Venom is absolutely the same thing. Brock wants revenge on Peter for humiliating him. Not the other way around.
Sandman puts revenge into Peters hands so to speak. Thats how our hero learns forgiveness.
Harry, like Ock, wasnt really sympathetic. He was misguided.
While, Venom, like Normans GG, was the irredeemable villain.
Sandman is the perfect middle man in this.
In SM1, Green Goblin asked for forgiveness but didnt deserve any. In SM2, Doc Ock deserved forgiveness but ended up sacrificing himself. In SM3, Sandman is neither fully evil, nor fully good. Which makes Spideys decision even so more admirable, since he shows us, as a true hero, that Flint does deserve a chance, at least this once.
Hmm, I think you need to rephrase that a little bit. It sounds like youre basing fan expectations on the marketing campaign.
Otherwise, thats true.
But Sonys marketing decisions are hardly the movies fault.
Lol, you're the one who's not listening.gah im not even trying anymore... it's like arguing with a republican.. you tell them the facts and the reasons and they sit there and nod and spout the same stuff back at you.
Why would Peter want to kill Harry?Introduce the black suit, have peter almost kill harry (and or some thugs)
Problem is, you're not just taking Sandman away. You're changing the whole story to fit your own idea.No need for sandman in there at all.. less convoluted story with still the theme of responsibility, redemption, and forgiveness with much less of a mess. Crisper, Cleaner, truer to source material, and not crammed with crap.
Lol, you're the one who's not listening.
I give you plenty of good reasons why Sandman has to stay in the movie but you give none why he shouldn't.
Why would Peter want to kill Harry?
Where's the revenge initiative?
Problem is, you're not just taking Sandman away. You're changing the whole story to fit your own idea.
And as I pointed out before, you can't take away Sandman, without significantly changing the plot.
That point goes against your argument of him being 'useless'.
I agree, Venom.
I'm perfectly ok with personal preference and dislikes, Ive said that a couple of times in my posts. But I'm arguing against spideyboy's point because he wants to go beyond that and for some reason is trying to prove his theory of dead weight solely based on his own personal grudge against Sandman.
Thing is, SM3 is what it is because of every major character. You could take any of them away only because you didnt find him appealing enough. You guys chose Sandman and thats fine. But then it wouldve been a completely different movie and not necessarily better. You just like to think that way because of your concentrated antipathies towards a particular villain. That makes it more about you than about the movie itself. And to use your own opinion as basis for your theory, is not a very wise thing to do.
Hurts your head, doesn't it?Why try to add more depth to that? it just makes things more of a mess and isn't needed. Sometimes things should stay simple.
I am going to be blunt and random. Movies that are bluntly and randomly ridiculous need to be bluntly and randomly ridiculed.
Spider-Man 3 is unlike any other movie I've seen. You want to know why? Because it is one of the most annoying, cringe-inducing, and vomit-bubbling films ever made. What's worse is that it is a follow-up of two films in a series before it that I actually did like. Third time is almost never the charm, and in this situation, third time is .....
The movie is filled with some of the most hammy of hammy dialogue. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) google-eyed, Peter repeating how good she was on stage. It's pathetic and it, seriously, lacked any sense of realism. All I heard was actors there for a third movie, tired of playing the same tired characters who could have already been summed up at the end of Spider-Man 2.
The film continues with them on a spidey-web and sharing their hammy love for one another while, almost too coincidentally, a strange meteor falls from the sky close by. For some odd reason, Spidey's Spider-sense must've been too focused on getting his fingers wet. I seriously took that into consideration. But then, scene after scene, I realized that there were coincidences all around every one of them paying benefit to bring on a movie which, even though is bloated with too much sub-stories and the like, really lacks plot.
One of the sub-stories of the movie involves Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) who is an escaped convict with a back-story that is the clichéd definition of a villain with good intentions' back-story. How does he get involved with Spider-Man? The fact that he killed his uncle. Ho ho. Yes... They change the origin of the previous films in order to work Sandman into the plot somehow, because, of course he can't be one of the criminals Spidey locks up and forgets about as he goes on to the next one.
But then, without this villain, there is another out of Eddie Brock, a rival photographer of Peter Parker, who only arrives in the film when needed to stir up some crap and leaves until he is needed for a final few minutes that made me scratch my head and question whether or not director Sam Raimi was aware that there is too much in the film, lame or not, but in this case, lame.
Of course, the meteor is important to the story, as it is what causes Spider-Man's sudden shift toward the dark side in which he becomes a whole new person. Uh huh. And not to add on that he follows it up by having his ego Peter Parker have an emo haircut that was obviously there to be stylish, or, something. I don't know. What were they thinking? I have no idea, other than to say, that at first sight of it I could not help but cringe and assume it was a cry to get Spidey closer to the emo clique.... But once again, I have no idea.
And let's not forget about the love triangles and all of the picture in which Harry Osborn (James Franco) seeks revenge on Spider/Peter for killing his father, does so by taking on his father's villainous Green Goblin, and somehow loses his memory on the way and is once again nice to Peter. When did this start to happen in real life or in the movies? Maybe the movies have had it before, but never this shoddily handled and with so much witless attention to characterizations. (Once again, all that seems to be on display is an empty plot that is there to just advance a movie, or so called, one.) Harry also begins growing stronger affection for Mary Jane some more. (She may or may not feel the same as she scrolls down her cell phone contacts between Harry and her poor, poor Peter.)
Follow this up with another character in the name of Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is in this film to be saved by our hero and after that there to cause the ruckus in the relationship of Peter and Mary Jane. A scene comes later where Peter tries to impress one of the girls (Mary Jane or Gwen; not sure due to lack of proper execution of character depth) by giving a sexy dance that involves chairs and a jacket removal in a bar where Mary Jane must work because she has been sadly replaced by someone prettier, and with much-better-voice, on Broadway.
Other scenes scattered here and there that made me want to vomit:
1)A scene where Peter Parker struts down the streets of the city as if he were in a 70s disco flick. John Travolta you are not, Tobey Maguire.
2)Epically bad fight scenes, staged amateurishly and with visuals that seem right at home with an early 2000's video game.
3)And the overall many moments of overacting by the entire, and I mean the entire, cast. James Franco's evil look at Peter Parker in particular. So campy!
How can I finish off this randomly told review.
Just let you know, that Spider-Man 3 insults my intelligence as a film lover, and sadly, I have not told but 1/8 of what annoys the hell out of me about the movie.
Rating: 0/10