Official Rate & Review Spider-Man 3 Thread! *SPOILERS*

[Mr Jide]

It seems that you really don't understand the Spidey's World.




Yesterday, in tv passed The Mask. Rewatching it, it was SO better than $pider-man III, considering the ambition of both movies.

You sound like a moron

 

[bosef982]

Word up, bro.

The first 2 movies were garbage, save a few scenes but this movie was spectacular, loved it.

See, this must be the thing:

Howlett and I like our superhero movies to be just that...a film, adhering to the artform of filmmaking. We like character development, well-paced action, and a integrated, thoughtful plot.

Others want simply a cool action-movie with their favorite hero in it that gets from plot point A to plot point B by whatever means neccessary and then gives you some amazing, FX action sequence in the end and says goodbye.

It's all a matter of differing taste, I suppose.

 

[Milkman95]

See, this must be the thing:

Howlett and I like our superhero movies to be just that...a film, adhering to the artform of filmmaking. We like character development, well-paced action, and a integrated, thoughtful plot.

Others want simply a cool action-movie with their favorite hero in it that gets from plot point A to plot point B by whatever means neccessary and then gives you some amazing, FX action sequence in the end and says goodbye.

It's all a matter of differing taste, I suppose.

Exactly - some people want an actual story with fleshed out characters, others just want action that keeps them entertained featuring their favorite hero. Those same people probably thought FF was a masterpiece as well.

I agree with a lot of your points - I was definitely disappointed in the film, but I would still rate it average and it's still better than the other subpar Marvel films like FF, GR, Punisher, Blade Trinity, and Elektra.

 

[bosef982]

Also, on a technical level, I just don't understand how the CGI turned out the way it did. Things were obviously sped up to hide FX shots, bluescreen was obvious, and a great deal of FX and the actual action beats were lost in the wierd, off-beat, rushed camera angles and movements.

 

[Mr Jide]

Really?

We have two to three flashbacks sequences involving Uncle Ben. The last so horrible narrative and voice-overed that it is beyond plot device.

We have a montage flashback of Harry's father dead and him holding him and all that stuff.

Then, the most awful, we have a flashback to an earlier portion in the movie with the bell which inexplicably manages to harm the symbiote (since its never establshed for the non-comic book audiences) and thus in the final moment Peter instantly understands that him slamming into the bell wasn't the symbiote reacting to him tearing it off but instead the affect of soundwaves....HELL, even the comic book explained that fact better.

That's about five flashback sequences in one movie. That, to me, is overused.

LMAO you're whining about this?? Do you have any sense of timing at all? If these 5 flashbacks were long then you'd have a valid point but these flashbacks in total lasted upto about 2 minutes or less out of the 2 hours and 20 odd minutes.

Your grasping at straws here

 

[bosef982]

Exactly - some people want an actual story with fleshed out characters, others just want action that keeps them entertained featuring their favorite hero. Those same people probably thought FF was a masterpiece as well.

I agree with a lot of your points - I was definitely disappointed in the film, but I would still rate it average and it's still better than the other subpar Marvel films like FF, GR, Punisher, Blade Trinity, and Elektra.

Yep. I gave it a 6/10 which is just above average and that was basically because the movie had somethings going for it and was overall fun to watch if I put my screenwriting critic on the back burner.

And yes, I'd rather watch this film than FF, GR, Punisher, Blade Trinity, and Elektra any day of the week.

I'm not saying this film is a irrecoverable disaster. In fact, I think some of the things I suggest would pretty much fix some of he flaws. And a movie that is a disaster CANNOT on any level be fixed.

So, it could've been fixed. It's just that, considering that the movie franchise was in the leage of Batman Begins, the first two X-Men, and yes if you look at reviews, even Superman Returns....to see its third installement, helmed by same crew, fall like this is just.....bad.

No wonder they were already thinking about bringing David Koeep on board to write this.

Alvin Sargeant is really the only thing that changed between SM2 and SM3. He was not the sole screenwriter before, he had the award winning Michael Chabon and then Gough and Miller working on it too.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Bosef...I've studied all of your points but the one that really sticks out to me?

You really think it's worse to kiss another girl in front of your girlfriend than hit her?

As far as I'm concerned, hitting her, should have been a reason for MJ to tell Pete to hit the road all together. Hitting a girl you love is far more worse than kissing another one in front of her. Cheating is something you can forgive, but smacking you around. No.

I think the hitting of MJ is a perfectly good and dark enough reason for Peter to ditch the black suit.

 

[bosef982]

LMAO you're whining about this?? Do you have any sense of timing at all? If these 5 flashbacks were long then you'd have a valid point but these flashbacks in total lasted upto about 2 minutes or less out of the 2 hours and 20 odd minutes.

Your grasping at straws here

Then why is it typically regarded among people who study film that flashbacks are a convienent way to fill in backstory that you were not able to do through insinuation, dialogue, or visual images.

For instance...establish through doc conners that the suit has a sensitivyt to sound. Or have a 30 second scene of Doc Conners studying it and have a cell phone go off...and the symbiote react. Leave it at that. But, then have Conners later tell Peter it has a sensitity to sound. Have the Bell Tower sequence...have Peter crash against the bell, it rip and have Peter pause, no flashback, just thinking, and then have Peter hit himself agains the tower...now the audience knows it has a sensititivy to sound and it was all done in the present narrative using present drama to do it. Thus, at the end, Peter's using the pipes flows naturlly and the audience isn't ripped out of the present action into the past to figure something out.

It's not a matter of ratios to minutes. Its a matter of a flashbacks impact on a film and its forward momentum. It slows it down. And flashbacks that are reinterpreted over and over again in different versions by the characters (i.e. Ben's death versus Marko's version) also slow the momentum of the story down and, in the middle of an action scene, introduces a voiceover to let the uadience know what REALLY happened...

its their execution and impact, not just their frequence. However, in this case, frequency plus poor execution and poor impact created a dragging use of flashbacks. Plain and simple.

 

[Mr Jide]

See, this must be the thing:

Howlett and I like our superhero movies to be just that...a film, adhering to the artform of filmmaking. We like character development, well-paced action, and a integrated, thoughtful plot.

Others want simply a cool action-movie with their favorite hero in it that gets from plot point A to plot point B by whatever means neccessary and then gives you some amazing, FX action sequence in the end and says goodbye.

It's all a matter of differing taste, I suppose.

What?

Character development, thoughtful plots?? Who exactly needed development? You cant be talking about Pete, Harry or MJ. You must be talking about Gwen and Brock...but I know who these characters are and also, Gwen will be back and we all knew Venom/Brock was going to die, so he was a thro away character....developing him anymore would have been pointless...he served his purpose and we knew all we needed to know about him.

For the 1st time in a spidey movie, I was more interested in the drama than the need for action because I found it to be great, compelling and exciting as opposed to the slow, boring, monotonous mumblings of sm1 and 2.

 

[bosef982]

Bosef...I've studied all of your points but the one that really sticks out to me?

You really think it's worse to kiss another girl in front of your girlfriend than hit her?

As far as I'm concerned, hitting her, should have been a reason for MJ to tell Pete to hit the road all together. Hitting a girl you love is far more worse than kissing another one in front of her. Cheating is something you can forgive, but smacking you around. No.

I think the hitting of MJ is a perfectly good and dark enough reason for Peter to ditch the black suit.

I understand and would normally be inclined to agree. However, we sort of have to do the lawyer thing here and look at intent and situation.

Remember, Peter ACCIDENTLY hits MJ. MJ throws herself into the middle of a brawl and Peter knocks her down without realizing its her. That is forgiveable in my opinion because it doesn't have a guilty mind intending to do it, does it? Nope. Yes, its bad that he did it. But, considering he thought MJ was cheating on him with good reason (she did say she was) and considering that he was fighting the bodyguards, NOT HER and hse got in the way, it completely mitigates the action's brashness. Competely mitigates. If anything, its almost makes it seem like the bodyguard fight is the reason that he takes off the suit b/c MJ getting hit in the scuffle is what prompts him to say, "what was I just doing?" and what he was just doing was fighting the bodyguards. Also, the horror of this hitting of MJ, an ACCIDENTAL HITTING, is further mittaged by the fact that we know its the suit, not Peter, making that choice. So, in the end, the suit makes Peter get into a fight where he accidently hits MJ. That's really what happened there.

when he kissed Gwen, he kissed her well aware of what he was doing, no suit on there. So, we hae Peter Parker makes a concious choice uninfluenced to kiss Gwen in front of MJ and the world of the suit makes PEter get into a scuffle where MJ is accidently hit.

I just don't see how MJ getting hit is a worse reflectoin on Peter's character.

 

[Milkman95]

Yep. I gave it a 6/10 which is just above average and that was basically because the movie had somethings going for it and was overall fun to watch if I put my screenwriting critic on the back burner.

And yes, I'd rather watch this film than FF, GR, Punisher, Blade Trinity, and Elektra any day of the week.

I'm not saying this film is a irrecoverable disaster. In fact, I think some of the things I suggest would pretty much fix some of he flaws. And a movie that is a disaster CANNOT on any level be fixed.

So, it could've been fixed. It's just that, considering that the movie franchise was in the leage of Batman Begins, the first two X-Men, and yes if you look at reviews, even Superman Returns....to see its third installement, helmed by same crew, fall like this is just.....bad.

No wonder they were already thinking about bringing David Koeep on board to write this.

Alvin Sargeant is really the only thing that changed between SM2 and SM3. He was not the sole screenwriter before, he had the award winning Michael Chabon and then Gough and Miller working on it too.

I also forgot to mention that SM3 is still better than the other great Marvel franchise that took a mighty fall, X-MEN 3. At least that was because it was rushed and that hack Ratner took over. With Spider-man 3, you're right, Raimi dropped the ball with not having Chabon or Koepp involved.....

 

[bosef982]

I also forgot to mention that SM3 is still better than the other great Marvel franchise that took a mighty fall, X-MEN 3. At least that was because it was rushed and that hack Ratner took over. With Spider-man 3, you're right, Raimi dropped the ball with not having Chabon or Koepp involved.....

Yes, that and I keep on thinking of Danny Elfman's words about this not being the Sam Raim on SM2 and thus why he didn't come back.

I'm wondering if, in all irony, Raimi's own ego is the reason for SM3's downfall.

 

[J.Howlett]

bosef,

"I just don't see how MJ getting hit is a worse reflectoin on Peter's character."

Because, as you pointed out, it's not. His kiss with Gwen was the ultimate offense in that film and completely undermines him as a character the rest of the way.

The other grave mistake of this film is how Peter's written. It would've been fine if he was mature and was just on an ego trip. Instead, we have an immature Peter and he's on an ego trip.

I was hoping that Raimi would've matured Peter pass the point of puppy love when he's with Mary Jane.

 

[squeekness]

Bosef...I've studied all of your points but the one that really sticks out to me?

You really think it's worse to kiss another girl in front of your girlfriend than hit her?

As far as I'm concerned, hitting her, should have been a reason for MJ to tell Pete to hit the road all together. Hitting a girl you love is far more worse than kissing another one in front of her. Cheating is something you can forgive, but smacking you around. No.

I think the hitting of MJ is a perfectly good and dark enough reason for Peter to ditch the black suit.

Keep in mind that in this one instance the hit was not on purpose. He was in the middle of bar brawl and she came up behind him. He swung blindly -- at least it seemed that way to me -- I don't think it was intentional. He did feel bad about it afterwards which speaks to his quality of character. In this one instance and this one instance only, I would agree that the kiss -- which was intentional --was the worse offense.

 

[J.Howlett]

bosef,

As you stated, this film is quite fixable because there are some genuine moments in the film that feel absolutely right. It's just that it's surrounded by a lot of bad choices on the script level, before they even executed the film....

 

[J.Howlett]

bosef,

In Raimi's defense, there have been at least two interviews where he's stated that he had a simpler film in mind.

Essentially, it was going to be Hary, Peter, Mary Jane, and Sandman. That would've worked. But considering the themes he was trying to push, or what I feel is the better story, it should've been Harry, Peter, Mary Jane, and Venom/Eddie.

 

[Jennifer Walters]

Personally, I'll agree why the hit was unintentional, it only happened cause of Peter's poor decisions to give into his anger and wear the suit in the first place. If he hadn't then none of this would have happened, thus the fight at the Jazz Club would have never happened and MJ would have never been unintentionally hit. So thus it still shows a bad reflection on Peter's part and one enough to say ''Hey. I need to rid myself of this thing. It's driving everyone I love away from me."

 

[Dragon]

But see, you're still not understanding. That's Peter understandably reacting to something. This man killed his uncle. Honestly, can we say that what Peter did wouldn't be something that he would've done had he not had the suit on...nope.

Yes we can. He didn't kill the man he first believed killed Ben.

What J. Howlett is getting at is that the suit is undermined by the situations that the characters are put in and how it fails to become a character onto itself which than can be seen as a serious threat once onto Eddie Brock. Also, due to it being so poorly explained, it begs the question why does Eddie Brock become a monster and Peter not...Brock has more hatred in him? More than Peter had for the man who killed his uncle? Hm....

That's correct. But not only that- Brock has YEARS of bitterness seething in him. Such bitterness drove him to wrongly implicate Spider-Man in a robbery. Such extreme emotion that he assumed a simple cup of coffee with Gwen meant more.

Thus, when Brock gets the suit the VEnom character is sort of a radical element, ti comes out of nowhere. Why is Eddie so hateful?

One can make the very easy leap that Eddie has simply had a hard life. we've known since the casting of Topher that Eddie was meant to be an obvious mirror image of Peter. So we can see that while he and Peter are basically alike, things that built character in Peter were missing in Eddie's life. It's not hard to imagine Eddie's relationship with his parents. A distant mother and an abusive father. Always needing to please someone and coming up short. This generates bitterness and rage.

Add to this to Peter's arch of great power and great responsiibilty. It would've been just as easy for Uncle Ben to be shot by the original shooter AFTER Sandman had told the guy to just go. ORiginal killer says no, he saw us, Sandman and him struggle and in that struggle, Ben gets shot. This perserves the idea that Peter could've prevented Uncle Ben's death and makes Sandman now the protector of Ben which makes his beating at the hands of Spider-Man even more disgraceful because Peter is so reactionary at this point that he doesn't get the facts.

This has been argued since this plotpoint was revealed.

Sam Raimi's explained it. Some of us here (ahem) has explained it.

The point of making Brock the actual killer is not to present Peter as some silly loose cannon who goes after the wrong man and learns that "revenge is wrong, because you might hurt the wrong person". Raimi's point was that revenge is ALWAYS wrong. Even if the person is GUILTY. Spider-Man's purpose is not to seek revenge, but justice.

Some of you are simply not grasping that point. Which is obviously why this is an important theme.

What this all does is make the suit the main reason for Peter not being able to control the ego that is only hinted at and stumbled over in the first act. Intead of that ego being already a dominating force in Peter, it is enhanced and given free range by the suit -- not Peter's own volition. Thus, when Peter gets rid of it, it leaves with the potency of what its done to his life and what it can do to another, and leaves Peter pretty much absolved of what he did while in it.

That wasn't what Sam was going for either. He WANTED Peter to be guilty. He wanted to present him as a flawed person, who despite his best efforts still failed. What you're asking for essentially suggests Peter be a saint, only brought down by the evil Black suit, which is too easy and simplistic. The darkside doesn't reach out and pull you in. You have to take a step toward it. The suit didn't strike at Peter until he was so full of rage, that his emoions literally called to the symbiote. Sam was trying to show us that the true measure of a man is when he can fail, simply because he's fallible. Not merely because of forces beyond his control. And then he can regroup and make his life better.

 

[The Guard]

I'd tend to agree about the numerous flashbacks. They were distracting and unneccessary.

 

[itsthebatman]

I'd tend to agree about the numerous flashbacks. They were distracting and unneccessary.

What was your overall opinion on the film?

 

[Darknightnomis]

I gave it a 7 out of 10.

It was a good movie. But with a little editing and less characters (i.e. one villian only it could've been great movie.

Definatley not as bad as some people made it out ot be here on these baords. The first 1/2 of the movie is actually quite well and then the last half seem to be throwing things together quickly to make it all fit together.

 

[bosef982]

I'd tend to agree about the numerous flashbacks. They were distracting and unneccessary.

hy aren't you on AIM?

 

[Mr Jide]

Then why is it typically regarded among people who study film that flashbacks are a convienent way to fill in backstory that you were not able to do through insinuation, dialogue, or visual images.

How should I know, I don't study film...however, I read comics and when films based on comics do a good job in representing and interpreting the source material, I can acknowledge it. How else should one tell/explain something that happened before? I'm no film student/expert but using flashbacks seems like a logical idea.

For instance...establish through doc conners that the suit has a sensitivyt to sound. Or have a 30 second scene of Doc Conners studying it and have a cell phone go off...and the symbiote react. Leave it at that. But, then have Conners later tell Peter it has a sensitity to sound. Have the Bell Tower sequence...have Peter crash against the bell, it rip and have Peter pause, no flashback, just thinking, and then have Peter hit himself agains the tower...now the audience knows it has a sensititivy to sound and it was all done in the present narrative using present drama to do it. Thus, at the end, Peter's using the pipes flows naturlly and the audience isn't ripped out of the present action into the past to figure something out.

Good point but all you did was suggest another avenue to explain something. There's still nothing wrong with using flashbacks and besides, flaskbacks is more in tone in terms of its use in a comic book movie. If I'm watching a superhero movie, I don't care for the realism or the convenience in its tone of movie-making. I care for a solid movie that realises its a movie based on escapist, comic strip fantasy. It seems many people here are forgetting this.

It's not a matter of ratios to minutes. Its a matter of a flashbacks impact on a film and its forward momentum. It slows it down.

In your opinion it does. However, it still allows for the film to move foward. Sometimes, you have to check your past in order to move foward and thats what the flashbacks did. It served a purpose that had no negative impact in anyway shape or form.

And flashbacks that are reinterpreted over and over again in different versions by the characters (i.e. Ben's death versus Marko's version) also slow the momentum of the story down and, in the middle of an action scene, introduces a voiceover to let the uadience know what REALLY happened...

Over and over again?? It occured twice. The first time was from Peter's perspective as to what he thoght happened....it's irational but very common behaviour...and this is what facilitated and fuelled his vengence. The second time was sandman explaining how it realy went down. As far as I see it, it was handled very well and effectively kept the flow of the movie, it didn't ruin the scenes at all.

its their execution and impact, not just their frequence. However, in this case, frequency plus poor execution and poor impact created a dragging use of flashbacks. Plain and simple.

Again, I disagree. I thought the flashbacks were infrequent and were executed nicely. Again, this is a comic book movie, it shouldn't necessarily follow the "movie-making rules" of conventional movies. I expect to see flash back scenes in comic book movies. You need to understand the genre of the films your watching because its pretty clear you don't.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'm glad we're moving pass the "you're stupid for believing ..."

Bosef, Guard and Howlett, I'm with you on this one. I can see where Raimi's original script was which makes it more annoying.

I understood the forgiveness of Sandman, but I wasn't emotionally invested enough in him to simply forget. Spidey should have said he'd do all he could to raise money for her with his new found celebrity, but he needed to go back to jail and serve his time.

 

[itsthebatman]

I gave it a 7 out of 10.

It was a good movie. But with a little editing and less characters (i.e. one villian only it could've been great movie.

Definatley not as bad as some people made it out ot be here on these baords. The first 1/2 of the movie is actually quite well and then the last half seem to be throwing things together quickly to make it all fit together.

Definitely. Enjoyed the first half a lot more, I think it went downhill from the beginning of the emo Peter sequence.