Roger Ebert's Review of Spider-man 3

[matthooper]

Pfft, there's no right or wrong in taste.
The only thing that it proves is that he certainly has his own incomprehensible rating system.

I was just joking.

On the Superman boards, I am well hated by the Singerman fans. Which is funny because I'm a realist not really a hater. I was extremely dissapointed by Superman Returns. I thought it was a melodramatic mess, void of action and creativity, and lacked any chemistry between any of the actors. That said, unlike many other people, I never said it was in the Catwoman/Batman and Robin vein. It's not a terrible film, just a boring one.

 

[Spade]

I like Ebert's reviews. At times he doesn't seem to get the logic behind things that are quite obvious in sci-fi, but he at least corrects himself in later reviews if a misstep occurs. I don't have the same venomous dislike as many over the net for his remarks, though I don't agree with him all the time.

As for his review, it's spot-on. They spent way too much time on the romance triangle, and all it does is engulf a superhero movie with all the droll execution of an afternoon soap opera. The superhero aspects, in comparison, were neglected. That's where I diverge in opinion with him; I did not like SM2 as much as the first due to an emphasis on the romance to the point where a disconnect happened between my sympathy for the hero and heroine's plight. This movie compounded that. The whole thing became a mess, and even with all that focus on the romance they couldn't even make it interesting for those of us who came for what was advertised.

His comments on the villains speaks truth as well. None of them have the presence of Molina. The Sandman isn't interesting at all, and the film does nothing to correct this. Many things about Venom lack any sort of explanation for people who aren't familiar with the comics because he's barely in this film. What's the point of focusing your marketing around a black Spider-Man if you keep explanations of it to moments where the focus isn't even on the creature? Franco's Goblin is so underwhelming and lacking in the "evil plan" department that at times (for all the focus on Harry) you might think they wrote all of his stuff overnight. One after another, we see villains. None of them leave a lasting impression.

I would continue, but I'd start writing a review and after I saw this film I promised myself I wouldn't post one a) to avoid being banned for language and b) to avoid wasting my time. On a last remark- some of you who noticed "Eddie Grace" seem to be so focused on your details...so I suppose "Gwen Bryce" doesn't bear mention? I think it's safe to say it wasn't a flub.

 

[Blader5489]

Personally, I never understood this whole "none of the villains in SM3 have the presence of Molina." What presence? I have never understood what was meant by that use of "presence" (or as one critic put it, "a centrifugal threat").

 

[Spade]

I don't know about other critics, but when I say "presence" I mean that Molina made every scene with him noteworthy with his acting. Sappy acting could have killed that role, but he played it with a sense of seriousness that made you really feel that he could be both kind Otto Octavius and the menacing Doc Ock in the same film.

The Sandman didn't have that. The film focuses on his innocence and ulterior motives for robbery (which are never fleshed out past the scene where he talks to his daughter in the beginning), invalidates that with the lightning-fast team-up with a man wearing the costume that almost killed him, and then just floats away. The movie tries to make him feel integral with the Uncle Ben flashback, but all it does is re-tread a better film. The hatred Peter had didn't even have to be explored- he was portrayed as an @ss for 40 minutes straight, and any rage he needed was supplied by the revelation behind Harry's flawed plan. The Pillsbury Doughboy in dirt at the end summarizes his whole purpose in the film- Sam thought he was visually appealing.

I don't even think I need to explain Venom. A cameo appearance does not a villain make.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Err...that's pretty much what Venom does in the comics.

It's not a review based on how faithful to the comics the movie is, it's a review based upon the quality of the movie.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Not to mention that the message of Spiderman 3 is a little ridiculous. If they want to say that Spidey is no better than the criminals he brings in and that he needs to be humble, thats fine, but to have him learn that lesson through a sympathetic villain who is trying to save his daughter is cheap. Most criminals arent trying to get money to save their sick daughters, so what lesson have I been taught? Dont judge criminals, because they are only trying to help their dying children? Thats not so impactful.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Personally, I never understood this whole "none of the villains in SM3 have the presence of Molina." What presence? I have never understood what was meant by that use of "presence" (or as one critic put it, "a centrifugal threat").

It means that none of the villains in Spidey 3 ever really stole the scene they were in.

 

[DACrowe]

I'd argue Harry did. But not in the way Dafoe and Molina did, but more in a sympathetic and personal way.

But Ebert doesn't give a rat's ass about that in what he calls "dumb entertainment," in multiple reviews.

 

[Hellion]

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

-R

I'm pretty sure he gave X2 a thumbs down...I remember he didn't like X1...I read the review...I'm pretty sure he liked X3...I'll double check X2...

I'll double check all three...

 

[lordofthenerds]

I'm pretty sure he gave X2 a thumbs down...I remember he didn't like X1...I read the review...I'm pretty sure he liked X3...I'll double check X2...

I'll double check all three...

He gave X2 a thumbs up.
http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=x2

 

[Lantern Venom]

I agree in part with Ebert because SM3 was bloated. I disagree that it wasn't a good movie, except for the fumbling of Venom, and that it had no character development. I thought Gobby 2's part was well written and masterfully acted by Franco.

The other criticism I have with this review is it seems like Ebert doesn't have any foreknowledge of the characters. He usually has a handle on the essence of most comic book characters but seems like he's in the dark with the new additions here. That's strange.

 

[matthooper]

Just on the subject of Ebert, this shows he has lost it since the massive stroke. In reading his review of I Am Legend he says:

In "I Am Legend," the situation raises questions of logic. If Neville firmly believes he is the last healthy man alive, who is the vaccine for? Only himself, I guess. Fair enough, although he faces a future of despair, no matter how long his cans of Spam and Dinty Moore beef stew hold out; dogs don't live forever.

The whole point of Neville's reasearch was to CURE THE INFECTED. He had no idea others existed and he stated quite clearly that he was already immune so he had no need for a cure. He was testing on already infected rats and infected human creatures. If Ebert missed that major point, his reviews cannot be taken seriously anymore.

Sure the tone for his SM3 review was on right, but his points are way off base. He clearly doesn't comprehend or remember things like he used to.

 

[Legendary]

As for his review, it's spot-on. They spent way too much time on the romance triangle, and all it does is engulf a superhero movie with all the droll execution of an afternoon soap opera. The superhero aspects, in comparison, were neglected.

What is interesting is, your post here sums up the overall description of all 3 spidey flicks.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I liked his review, and I agree with it. But somehow SM3 doesn't bothers me as much as it does other people. I think it has a a LOT of stupid moments and cringe worthy stuff, but I kinda liked it. The Harry stuff was the best in the whole film, and he's basically the only "villain" that gets a satisfying resolve to his arc. Sandman felt incomplete, like they just needed to get rid of him after serving his purpose as a visual effect. Venom....Was just a missed oportunnity.

 

[HCpride]

"He can have holes blown into him with handguns, but then somehow regains the bodily integrity to hammer buildings."

thats how sandman was in the comics
i mean a lot of the stuff in that review that he hated is just stuff carried over from the comics

the symbiote gives peter the spider symbol
and it knows everything peter knows

he is trying to take a movie that is fantasty and ask why why why
take a trip into your imagination

 

[Warhammer]

Roger Ebert is the reviewer that I agree with 90% of the time. I agree with most of his review.

 

[Stevens25]

Although I do like hearing my favorite movies get great reviews,I really don't put too much stock in what critics have to say. What's the point? Everyone has their own opinions of what is good and what isn't. Being a critic is kind of a useless job,in my opinion. So,Ebert didn't like Spider-man 3. Does that mean it's bad? No,not at all. Some may not like it,while others loved it. Personally,Spider-man 3 has it's flaws and while part 2 may be the most complete of the trilogy,I loved Spidey 3. As I've mentioned many times before,I just didn't like the very little screentime and development Venom/Eddie Brock recieved. That was my only major disappointment with the film,but overall I thought it was awesome.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Warhammer]

Well, if you usually agree with a certain critic, or if you are on the fence about a film and don't want to waste money, then critics have a purpose of being.

 

[Batmans Spirit]

Great review Ebert gave on Spidey 3! Hit the nail on the head, but im surprised he didn't go in for the kill. There was a lot of badness he left out!