I just finsihed watching the 3rd movie. I have to say despite all the Peter turned emo and the story was average comments that have circulated it was much better than people made i ut to be imo. There was alot going on and there were times with alot of multiple stoylines but the movie somehow managed to wrap up each one very well. Also to adress the emo comments ive heard, He only has an emo haircut and acted that way for about 2 minutes in the whole thing. If anything he just acted arrogant with the black suit. What does everyone else think because i feel as though this movie is much better than the 2nd. The first moie kind of sparked my interest in Spiderman again but the second felt so dull and had a weak villian.
.
I love the film myself,but I must admit that it is now my second favorite of the franchise after,at one time,being my favorite(Spidey 2 is the best). It all has to do with The Dark Knight. After seeing all the previews and such,it makes me mad because I wish Spider-man 3 was that dark(I know that Spidey and Batman are very different in terms of seriousness and darkness,but Spidey 3 was the perfect setup for a dark and edgy film). Plus,the Joker is my second favorite villain after Venom and I REALLY wish Venom got the all star treatment that Joker is getting now,and that Ock and Goblin recieved in the first two Spider-man films. I wanted more Venom,more symbiote and more darkness for Spider-man 3,but alot of it was cheese. Spider-man 3 was,without a doubt,the most anticipated film of my life,mainly becuase of Venom and the symbiote. In the end,we only got 7 minutes of Venom and not enough development of Eddie Brock. That still angers me to this day.
That being said,I still love the film,however. It's alot of fun and has so much heart behind it. All 3 films are brilliant and they make up the best superhero franchise out there. Clearly,it's the most entertaining film of the series,for sure.
I disagree on a few points. First, Batman and Spider-Man are vastly different. What you have to remember is what came before it in continuity. People love SM1 and SM2 in part for the light hearted feel, so drastically changing the tone is not a good idea cause it doesn't feel in line with SM1 and SM2. It is too different that way. They did go darker if you analyze the movie, but it was calculated darker. Much more controlled version of dark which I think was the best way to go.
Also, Venom and Joker are again two different cases. Joker got a set-up villain angle in BB and is not a villain that requires a lot of set-up. You can just throw the Joker out there and have a good time (not much explaining). Venom requires a lot of back story, and I am amazed they did it all in one movie. Before SM3, I never thought that was possible while making a good movie. Trying to fit Venom in did create a few flaws in the movie, but it didn't overshadow the movie's good aspects IMO. I too wish Brock had a scene or two more, but I was happy with the amount of Venom. Also, Venom is supposed to be a darker Spider-Man, which Raimi did but to a more extreme degree. This Venom was just evil. Venom's evil was exaggerated for a thematic reason. Venom was supposed to show us where revenge and refusing to forgive can lead us. He is the embodiment of what Peter had to learn through this experience. In this way, I feel Venom worked. I am also not a huge comic Venom fan, but in any case, I see what Raimi was doing.
Again, SM3 had flaws, but this movie has a lot of good/great aspects to it which are ignored and not acknowledged time and time again by people.
I'm sorry,I do agree with what you're saying. Batman and Spider-man are in 2 completely different universes and what's dark in a Batman movie may be too dark for a Spidey film. I think I just wanted the symbiote to be taken seriously. Now,I loved the whole "Peter strutting down the street" montage,but I wanted the mood to be a bit more serious. Here's the alien thing that begins to take over Peter(body and soul)and brings out his dark side and I wanted the film to view that with a bit less cheese. Although,when I do watch the movie I did find Peter very dark and Black Spidey rather menacing.
And when you bring up Venom,that's what I was disappointed in. There's so much more story to be explored but the movie was so crowded with Goblin,Sandman;etc that Venom didn't get the treatment he deserved. Of course,I'm a Venom fanatic so you can understand that I wanted to see more of him.
I do fully agree with your last sentence,though. And what does it say that despite the film's flaws,it's still is a great movie?
Agreed, I'm a Venom fan, but I think what Raimi did was great. I loved the symbiote's role in the story. I mean Eddie could have used a couple more scenes, but I'm okay with what we got. I still love Spider-man 3.t:I think the movie being as crowded as it was and delivering what it did is an accomplishment. A crowded movie will always have its flaws, but Raimi found a way to make it all work, and still produce an awesome (and underrated) movie.
Now, I can see why Venom fans may have been disappointed with SM3's version of him, but from a creative standpoint, I can see why Raimi did what he did, and how he envisioned the character working in the big picture.
Agreed, I'm a Venom fan, but I think what Raimi did was great. I loved the symbiote's role in the story. I mean Eddie could have used a couple more scenes, but I'm okay with what we got. I still love Spider-man 3.t:
I wish they had kept the scene of Eddie, going to the Stacy's home.I agree that Brock needed a scene or two more. His character does suffer from not being on the screen very much, especially when you see him looking at Peter taking Gwen out. That should have some emotion behind it, but since he is not on the screen much at this point, it is background noise.