Roger Ebert's Review of Spider-man 3

Smit84

Civilian
Joined
Oct 15, 2007
Messages
193
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Roger Ebert finally reviewed Spider-man 3 on his web site.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071115/REVIEWS/711150305

Ebert had recently had surgery when Spider-man 3 opened and was unable to review it. Ebert has been pretty slip on the Spider-man movies. He was lukewarm on the first one (2 1/2 stars), loved the second (4 stars), and was very dissapointed with this one (2 stars). It's definately worth a read.
 
Meh. I've read it.

I generally like Ebert for smaller movies I might have missed and he has a good taste in telling the difference between good movies and Oscar bait, but his reviews of mainstream entertainment, while I mostly agree with him, is too damn smug.

In that review he contradicts himself a few times to take cheap shots at the movie and sound superior. Ex. saying there is too much talking between MJ and Peter and they are too melodramatic but then saying he wish "they had the complexity of a soap opera" later in the review. I also think it is funny instead of focusing on the movies OBVIOUS flaws (namely uneven pacing, too many characters, too many villains and so much subplot characters and development get lost in it) he merely skims them and instead goes after it for being too "talkative," when that is exactly why he liked SM2 so much. I understand SM2 was a better movie, but praising one for a virtue and criticizing the other for it just seems niave. The worst "critique" he had was complaining that the second SM/GG2 fight should have ben an ariel Goblin fight instead of a fist fight. Surely the film expert could have noticed that we had that fight at the beginning and this incredibly unsubtle movie was staging an unsubtle fist fight to change pace for a "gritty" tone. I can appreciate why he prefers Molina and Dafoe's villains, but c'mon.

Overall I understand why he didn't like the movie but he seemed to focus too much on items that are present in the second movie instead of how poorly conceived the screenplay is, which is the obvious place to aim at.

P.S. Last time I checked Peter and MJ kissed more than once upside down before Peter was thinking about marriage in SM3, **** th kissed at the beginning of SM3. And they've been dating for a year, so hopefully they have "consumated" things at this point. But that is an example of just trying to sound smug but sounding dumb.

I appreciate his reviews of the Assassination of Jesse James, No Country for Old Men, Gone Baby Gone, etc. more than when he tries to be witty and clever (and pretentious) in his reviews.
 
and he called Eddie "Eddie Grace" instead of "Eddie Brock"
 
It's a dead on accurate review in tone, but for all the wrong reasons. He really gives no valid reasons for his dis-like. He tries to prove points with innacurate facts and fuzzy memories.

What is this rediculoius quote:

"The unique quality of the classic comic books was that their teenagers had ordinary adolescent angst and insecurity. But if you are still dangling in taxicabs at age 20, you're a slow learner."

That makes no sense.
 
This sums it up:
"But if you are still dangling in taxicabs at age 20, you're a slow learner."

"We know that Spider-Man's powers do not reside in his red suit, which lies in a suitcase under his bed. So how do fake Spideys like Venom gain their powers when they are covered with the black substance? And how does a microorganism from outer space know how to replicate the intricate patternwork of the Spidey costume, right down to the chest decoration? And to what purpose from an evolutionary point of view? And what good luck that the microorganism gets Peter's rival photographer, Eddie Grace, to infect, so that he becomes Venom! And how does Eddie know who he has become?"

"While Peter goes through a period of microorganism infection, he combs his hair forward, struts the streets, attracts admiring glances from every pretty girl on the street, and feels like hot stuff. Wait until he discovers sex."

"too many street crowds looking high into the air and shouting "oooh!" this way, then swiveling and shouting "aaah!" that way."
 
Not a fan of Ebert since he didn't like the first Die Hard :o So not a fan of his reviews...
 
I love Roger Ebert, and while i might not always agree with his reviews (A clockwork orange, Brazil) I think he is one hell of a writer. ANd i think a lot of times his understanding of cinema is pretty unprecedented for critics.
 
"We know that Spider-Man's powers do not reside in his red suit, which lies in a suitcase under his bed. So how do fake Spideys like Venom gain their powers when they are covered with the black substance? And how does a microorganism from outer space know how to replicate the intricate patternwork of the Spidey costume, right down to the chest decoration? And to what purpose from an evolutionary point of view? And what good luck that the microorganism gets Peter's rival photographer, Eddie Grace, to infect, so that he becomes Venom! And how does Eddie know who he has become?"
Err...that's pretty much what Venom does in the comics.

"While Peter goes through a period of microorganism infection, he combs his hair forward, struts the streets, attracts admiring glances from every pretty girl on the street, and feels like hot stuff. Wait until he discovers sex."
Hilarious. :woot:

Damn, that’s just what we need - a ‘professional’ film critic and a revered cinema connoisseur in general reviewing average popcorn flicks.
Ebert lost all credibility in my eyes a while ago. He basically just does that for the attention and money. I suspect he even gets bribed by companies to praise or bash that or the other movie.
Go check what he has to say about SM1’s ending. Not funny…
 
I really didn't like this review. This film was great and I guess he just didn't see that.
 
The review wasn't necessarily wrong (although is damn near impossible to decipher if you don't understand his references), but Ebert's scoring has always been wonky. He gave X3 and Daredevil three stars, but gave the 1989 Batman two stars. He also gave Batman & Robin two stars but two-and-a-half for Batman Foever.

So in Ebert's eyes:

X3 = Daredevil > Batman Forever > Batman '89 = Batman & Robin = Spider-Man 3

:dry:
 
Not a fan of Ebert since he didn't like the first Die Hard :o So not a fan of his reviews...

Hard to argue with this. I especially didn't like how his negative score was based soley on the Deputy Dwayne Robinson character. He seemed to think everything else about it was good but the stupidity of the character dragged the entire movie down for him which is kind of ridiculous.
 
I liked the movie and a lot of what he said wasn't really that right (even though they're his opinions)

LOL.
 
Why does everyone try to put so much logic into comic books films? Geez. Just watch them and take them for what they are.
 
Err...that's pretty much what Venom does in the comics.
Yes I know:cwink: He is making fun of the fact that they don't explain any of that in the movie...it just happens and the casual movie go-er is suppose to either already know it or just throw reason out the window.:woot:
 
The review wasn't necessarily wrong (although is damn near impossible to decipher if you don't understand his references), but Ebert's scoring has always been wonky. He gave X3 and Daredevil three stars, but gave the 1989 Batman two stars. He also gave Batman & Robin two stars but two-and-a-half for Batman Foever.

So in Ebert's eyes:

X3 = Daredevil > Batman Forever > Batman '89 = Batman & Robin = Spider-Man 3

:dry:
Ebert and Roeper...I think Roeper was the one who loved X3, not Ebert. They seem to love Oscar worthy movies and give mindless action two thumbs up...oh well. Ebert did have a few good points but he did give a great review for SM2.
 
I don't usually agree with him on his superhero films, Roeper is more dependable when it comes to that. I couldn't trust Ebert's review of Superhero movies after he gave both of the first two Batman films a thumbs down but gave X-Men 3 a thumbs up.
 
Ebert and Roeper...I think Roeper was the one who loved X3, not Ebert. They seem to love Oscar worthy movies and give mindless action two thumbs up...oh well. Ebert did have a few good points but he did give a great review for SM2.

They both reviewed X3, it was before Ebert had to leave.

And personally, I trust Roeper even less.
 
Ebert has given:

Batman: Thumbs down
Batman Returns: Thumbs down
Batman Forever: Thumbs up (I think)
Batman & Robin: Thumbs down
Blade: Not sure
X-Men: Thumbs Down
Spider-Man: Thumbs down
Blade II: Thumbs Up
Daredevil: Thumbs Up
X2: Thumbs down
Hulk: Thumbs Up
Elektra: No idea
Punisher: No idea
Spider-Man 2: Thumbs Up
Blade III: Thumbs Down
Batman Begins: Thumbs Up
Fantastic Four: Thumbs Down
X3: Thumbs Up
SR: Don't know if he reviewed it
Spider-Man 3: Thumbs down

So in his opinion the best superhero movies besides SM2 and BB are Batman Forever, Blade II, Daredevil and X3.

Not the most prestigous list of films in teh genre, I'd argue.
 
Ebert has given:

Batman: Thumbs down
Batman Returns: Thumbs down
Batman Forever: Thumbs up (I think)
Batman & Robin: Thumbs down
Blade: Not sure
X-Men: Thumbs Down
Spider-Man: Thumbs down
Blade II: Thumbs Up
Daredevil: Thumbs Up
X2: Thumbs down
Hulk: Thumbs Up
Elektra: No idea
Punisher: No idea
Spider-Man 2: Thumbs Up
Blade III: Thumbs Down
Batman Begins: Thumbs Up
Fantastic Four: Thumbs Down
X3: Thumbs Up
SR: Don't know if he reviewed it
Spider-Man 3: Thumbs down

So in his opinion the best superhero movies besides SM2 and BB are Batman Forever, Blade II, Daredevil and X3.

Not the most prestigous list of films in teh genre, I'd argue.

He gave Superman Returns a thumbs down and he gave, I'm pretty sure, X2: X-men United a thumbs up.

-R
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,530
Messages
21,752,963
Members
45,587
Latest member
hugoodeww
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"