The Critics' Reviews of Spider-Man 3 Thread

[Jerry!]

Who cares which movie made more money. Batman Begins made less money than any Spiderman movie and its still the best of all of them. The amount of money a movie makes does not equal the quality of the movie.

 

[pjspider1C]

Who cares which movie made more money. Batman Begins made less money than any Spiderman movie and its still the best of all of them. The amount of money a movie makes does not equal the quality of the movie.

True. Quantity does not equal quality. However, in this case, quantity at least equals more quantity. They'll keep making Spider-Man movies as long as they keep making money.

 

[ghost_x]

Apparently they are looking at making the next movie cheaper, which could be bad in the sense of less of a spectacle but good in the sense of focusing on substance rather than style.

 

[StylishHokie21]

Superman may have listen in on what Lois had to say about him but he never pimp smacked her like Spidey did.

You completely missed the point of that scene.

 

[ghost_x]

You completely missed the point of that scene.

Clearly he missed the point of Superman as well, so there's really no point

 

[YJ1]

Why does Superman have to be compared to Spiderman in this critics thread as well as on the Superman forums? The critics are not being kind to Spiderman and they were much more kind to Superman, but what matters is the BO. Spiderman has already passed Superman's total WW gross at this point right?

You answered your own question. Superman fans are just jealous and envious of a better film and a better franchise. A lot of this current crop of whining is just fans of other films trying to drag Spider-Man down to their level. Spider-Man beating down SR in only 4 days is an embarrassment that they don't want to tolerate.

 

[The Caped Knight]

Ok Can some explain to me that with [119 - good reviews] & [75 - bad] RT meter remains at 61% ?

 

[YJ1]

A 3.5 out of 4 star review:

Spider-Man 3 3.5 out of 4 stars

The Spider-Man series has been the end-all-be-all of comic book superhero movies since it's 2002 inception. Clearly the best superhero series of all time infusing sensibilities of an Oscar-winning melodrama into a fanboys wetdream, from the start it seemed that Sam Raimi and his team were perfect for telling the story of the young, nerdy, insecure Peter Parker and his transformation into New York's friendly neighborhood savior Spider-Man. The casting was spot-on, character actor Tobey Maguire as Spider-Man proved that Raimi wanted to tell a story that would require a real actor that could evoke emotion and carry a film due to more than his boyish good looks and fanboys around the globe rejoiced after the history making debut of 114M in boxoffice receipts. A superior sequel followed in 2004, building on the character study of the first film, improved effects, and a more entertaining villain in the no-holds barred and villainous Alfred Molina as Doc Ock (William Defoe was great in Spidey One but that Fisher Price Goblin mask is still to this day unforgivable). There were scenes in Spider-Man 2 that resonated so well you could easily mistake that you were watching an arthouse film (The christlike carrying of Peter Parker in the Subway car and Aunt May's "a hero in all us" speech come to mind). I loved Spidey 2 but I was disappointed with some parts and I didn't think is was the masterpiece it was praised as. It was just better than every other comic book movie of its time. Which wasn't hard to do considering the competition. I thought they beat a dead horse in Spider-Man 2 by constantly showing us how hard it was for Peter as Spider-Man. In repeat viewings, by the time we get to the "Raindrops Falling on My Head" montage the movie literally comes to a screeching and unsatisfying stand still. We all wanted more. We all wanted to see Peter kick some arse.

Fast forward to 2007, the previews for Spider-Man 3 has promised a much more darker and much more action packed (3 villains) film. And we all know the pathos and character studied emotion that had made the first two entries so special would be a lock, right? Well, not quite. While Spider-Man 3, for my money, stands as "the most purely entertaining comic book film I have ever seen" it clearly has sacrificed entertainment value for the value of character development that the first two films had. To do justice completely to the story that Raimi and his cohorts (who should be praised for the ambition and guts it took to tackle a story of this magnitude, and ALMOST, pull it off) would need 3 hours. Well, they only get 2 hrs and 20 minutes. But I guarantee you, it's some of the most chaotic, wildly entertaining, and frustrating 2hrs and 20 minutes you'll spend at the movies this summer.

The movie begins right were the last film left off. Peter Parker is enjoying an all-time emotional high. New York has finally embraced him as the hero he is. His relationship with MJ is soaring and life is good. He's at the top of his class and has even caught the eye of the beautiful Gwen Stacy (his lab partner in Dr. Connor's science class). Meanwhile, his once best friend now sworn arch enemy Harry Osbrone is plotting his revenge. Still blindly blaming Parker for his father's death he wants Peter to pay. And because of this we are given one of the films highlights. Minutes into the film Peter and Harry have one of the most amazing fight scenes of the trilogy with the stakes already high before the film even really begins. Spider-Man 2 this is not I thought. Raimi wants to get right to the action. He knows you have invested in the Peter/Harry story for two films. We don't need exposition here, lets get straight to business.

Immediately, I'm thinking. The critics and the bashers are wrong. And after the brilliant transformation of petty crook turned daddy-to-the-rescue Flint Marko into Sandman and he and Spidey's first confrantion amid an armored car, I was sold by Spider-Man 3. There's is nothing Raimi could do to ruin this film. It was better than both films combined for almost an hour and thirty minutes. I was sure I was watching the best film in the Spider-Man saga. Then, low-and behold, problems arise. And those problems never go away. To explain, I don't have the same beef with Spider-Man that most people have. I thought Peter's change into the swagger heavy and boastful black suited bad-*** was a great idea and much needed to the series. After the constant let-downs Peter had in Spidey 2, the constant doubts and him not wanting to be Spider-Man anymore it would almost be redundant to have him feel that way in this film. Why explore that theme again? It got boring in Spider-Man 2. It's no need. It was only natural to have Peter finally enjoy himself even to the point of becoming someone he shouldn't become. Second, I loved Gwen Stacy's role in the film. She wasn't underused. Her character was perfectly used and this was handled great by the screenplay. And Bryce Dallas Howard was gorgeous. The scene were Peter gives her the infamous upside-down kiss is priceless. This let me know Raimi was thinking trilogy. Everything was coming full circle. Harry and Peter, Peter and MJ, Peter and Aunt May, Peter and Uncle Ben. Flint Marko being Ben's real killer was another added bonus. It made him more valuable to the film than his screen time would allow.

The biggest (and only) problem with Spider-Man 3 are in fact the villains. Aside from Harry as Green Goblin (he was perfect), Sandman and Venom were just underdeveloped and it's hard to care for them or their conflict with Peter. To start, we introduce Flint Marko's reason for being the escape convict he is, his dying daughter. And besides the locket he holds so dear, we never see her again. We don't care about his story the way we did Harry and Norman's father/son relationship in Spidey One and Dock Ock's relationship with his wife (we invested time in those two characters in Spider-Man 2, great scenes of development were had with them before she died...we understood). Topher Grace as Eddie Brock was great though. He needed more screen time. His conflict was with Peter. He was after Peter's job. His girlfriend Gwen Stacy had an eye for Parker and Spider-Man and the stakes were much higher between these two characters. Venom should have been the main villain here. Easily.

That's the problem. Venom should have been the focus and not Sandman. I started to ask myself half way in why this wasn't as obvious to Raimi as it was to me. Think about it, the black ooze that falls from outer-space that corrupts Peter, direct connection with Venom. The entire film's story was a direct connection with Peter and Eddie and Spider-Man and Venom. That's what people are missing. The only error Raimi made was not having Brock become Venom earlier and giving Topher Grace more screen time than Sandman. Aside from that, and the ending, Spider-Man 3 is above everything given to us in previous installments.

By films end, we have been wowed. We have laughed. We have cried (a little too much). The only crying scene that worked was Peter and MJ on the bridge at the park. This was devastating. And we still feel something is missing. The sappy and melodramatic finale just seems rushed and a cop out. But it was tall order for Raimi and his team. They tried valiantly to pack this third film with more of everything and just falls short of pulling it off. I see what Tobey Maguire meant when he said, "it feels like the end". Why pack this film with so much if there would be a fourth? Why try to wrap up every storyline you've established? Why would they try to pull that off? But what they do pull off is still lightyears ahead of any comic book film of recent memory and they do it with style, with grace, and with dignity. If Raimi could go back though, I know he would've made Venom and Eddie Brock the main focus. And that would've catapulted Spidey 3 instantly as the best comic book film of all-time. And one of the best films of the year. As is, Spider-Man 3 is still approching greatness. So all the retractors should stop whining. There won't be a better comic book film this year. And that's a fact.

-Cedric M. Grant

 

[YJ1]

Ok Can some explain to me that with [119 - good reviews] & [75 - bad] RT meter remains at 61% ?

119 divided by 194 = .61

Why is anyone still looking at the RT meter? That thing is completely meaningless. (I said the same thing after SM2's mark)

 

[KappeiJin]

You answered your own question. Superman fans are just jealous and envious of a better film and a better franchise

Better francise: yes.
Better movie: no.

SR is still far away from SM3, because at least Singer tried to take it in a serious way, instead of SM3 where Raimi pushed every aspect on a ironic and cheesy representative style. That's too much to compare and if u accept the enormous admount of cheesy elements in SM3 you must also justify and appreciate something like Batman & Robin.

 

[ghost_x]

Why do serious films possess more integrity than lighthearted films? They're all made for different types of audiences

 

[FlawlessVictory]

119 divided by 194 = .61

Why is anyone still looking at the RT meter? That thing is completely meaningless. (I said the same thing after SM2's mark)

Because they compile reviews of critics and we are in the critics' reviews thread of SM3? For that matter, why did you post the review by Cedric M. Grant?

 

[Tempest19]

Why do serious films possess more integrity than lighthearted films? They're all made for different types of audiences

Because critics only like film as art, not "escape"

Personally- I just love and started getting involved in films to provide an "escape from reality" and to "entertain" the audience.

 

[ghost_x]

Because critics only like film as art, not "escape"

Personally- I just love and started getting involved in films to provide an "escape from reality" and to "entertain" the audience.

I'm not talking about critics, it was in response to someone who made a statement about not liking a camp film and only liking serious movies.

 

[Tempest19]

Oh... well, critics are exactly the same- for some reason alot critics understand "art", but not fun entertainment.

 

[ghost_x]

I know that

 

[spider-neil]

Better francise: yes.
Better movie: no.

SR is still far away from SM3, because at least Singer tried to take it in a serious way, instead of SM3 where Raimi pushed every aspect on a ironic and cheesy representative style. That's too much to compare and if u accept the enormous admount of cheesy elements in SM3 you must also justify and appreciate something like Batman & Robin.

SR = bore fest and an unoriginal bore fest at that.

batman and robin = dross

SM3 = entertaining but flawed movie

 

[dodus]

Oh... well, critics are exactly the same- for some reason alot critics understand "art", but not fun entertainment.

True, to some extent, for ****ty critics and pretentious film geeks. I think other (better critics) and film geeks are more appreciative of what a film is trying to do.

 

[GhostPoet]

Raimi allowed his vision to be compromised by giving into Arad and Ziskin. He should have stood his ground. He's earned that right with what he did with SM1 and SM2. Unfortunately we will never actually see what Raimi originally had in mind. Instead, we will have to settle for what I feel is a mess of a movie.

A mess of a movie? heh Are you sure we both saw the same film?

 

[ghost_x]

It was a mess, there's no denying that, but it was an exciting and enjoyable mess

 

[christpunchers]

Raimi allowed his vision to be compromised by giving into Arad and Ziskin. He should have stood his ground. He's earned that right with what he did with SM1 and SM2. Unfortunately we will never actually see what Raimi originally had in mind. Instead, we will have to settle for what I feel is a mess of a movie.

Yep, agree with you wholeheartedly.

I can only imagine what sam's original script was. More focus on parker without needing the black suit, more harry, more on sandman, maybe intro for eddie brock but that would have been it. And yeah, probably he would have showed more effort in masking out coincidences that happened every 3 minute.

 

[dodus]

It was a glorious mess.

 

[christpunchers]

LMAO re read them pal shallow and flashy is all they were remember sandman caught in a vacuum cleaner???? and I can go on and on and on.....with the cheese of the Spiderman comics of the 60's 70's and even 80's.

And yeh sorry but BEEEP WRONG way way more people like Spiderman 3 than people who dislike it heck if half the Spiderman fans went to see SR it might not have flopped so badly.

Also just FYI Rami did not want Venom in this movie it was forced on him by Avi so its not really lazy its more a script re-write and they had to make it flow well with the contexy of the movie which they did quite well.

"People" who liked spiderman 3, people as in the ones who are only there to watch the action scenes, the 13/14/15 year olds that are just glad to see spiderman regardless of a script full of holes, people who never cared for the first 2 movies and understood how much more solid they were - theyre not people that i care for. Sure of course, im not gonna be a troll about it since if i was a 13 year old i would vote 10/10 automatically for a spidey film. But when even imdb shows a lower than 7 rating and overall the reception of the film seems to be mixed (all 3 viewings i attended everyone walked out with a whimper, no cheers or claps like we had with spidey2), then you know that there is something wrong with the movie.

And dont say "hey its a comic book movie" or "you've overhyped yourself", the way things were going with the first 2 movies, it wasnt unreasonable for many of us to expect something just as good if not better than what we had before.

 

[ghost_x]

I've never wondered before, but do youngsters enjoy Spiderman 2? there is a great deal of dialogue orientated scenes where no action is present, do kids still have fun?

 

[TheVileOne]

Here's the thing though. Fans were demanding Venom for the third movie. Not just comic book fans, but a lot of the mainstream fans as well.

People would've been pissed and crying if Venom wasn't in it.

So just saying, that's why Sony, Ziskin, and Arad wanted Raimi to put Venom in there.