<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ May 6 2007, 11:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What did they change that you didn't like, Justice?</div>Just like I said, they changed the whole persona of Spider-Man. He isn't really clever or sarcastic in the movie like he is in the comics, video games, cartoons, etc.You know how Spider-Man puts his two fingers into his palm and leaves the other three extended? Yeah, well there was an explanation to that which was not explained in the movies at all. In the movies, they just basically explained it that his web shooting ability just worked that way. So basically, they never explained it. In other forms of media, he actually built a mechanical webshooter and made the webs from the instincts he gained from the spider bite. He was trying to make the webshooter so that when he was punching, the webs would not just shoot out. Obviously, he would not punch with three fingers extended, so that was the reason that he used that particular hand "sign" to fire his webs. The movie makers missed little things like this and turned it all into a joke. To people who never watched the cartoon or anything like that, they just said, "Haha oh man that's funny. He was trying to say go web go hahaha!" But that was stupid to me.Another thing that I think Rok mentioned was the Gwen Stacy thing. She is supposed to be Spider-Man's first girl in the comics, then gets killed by Green Goblin. That's a little problematic since 1. Peter already had Mary Jane as a love interest and 2. the original Green Goblin is dead.Yeah, you can just say they were trying to be creative with things like that... but it's just such a recurring thing. They just really haven't made the series that interesting so far. The movies aren't as bad as Batman and Robin or anything like that, but they aren't great, either. I feel kinda the same way about the Spider-Man movies as the X-Men movies... they are just mediocre (at least X-Men doesn't concentrate so much on the romance aspect though, I'll give them that).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I think I realize that smartass....I'm just saying that it doesn't really make much sense...</div>It makes plenty of sense if you think within the context of the movie CB4. I mean I don't remember the scene having a running clock timing when Spidey backflipped over the car to him webslinging on screen after them. I'm pretty sure with his abilities he had ample time to change and into action. It's not like it was a continuous shot.
Saw it yesterday, and it was trash. Waaaay over-hyped. Even the ending was that good.Waste of my time and money.
This movie was simply amazing! I saw it on friday with my ol' man, and I must say I was impressed. It had great action, and the storyline, was good considering it tried to have 3 stories in one. The graphics and special effects where awesome, couldn't really tell they where special effects.Overall I give this movie a: 9.9/10, I would have given it a full 10, but it didn't tell what happened to SandMan at the end, I mean did he save his daughter or not?
I saw it on Sunday and it was just about what I expected. I wasnt going expecting it to be this great great movie nor a total bomb. Was it my favourite Spider-Man? No, but it wasnt terrible either. Also, was it just me, but did anyone start laughing when Peter turned into the "black" Spider-Man and suddenly turned emo as well? I honestly couldnt stop laughing at that. All of a sudden his hair is emo and he looks like he's wearin "guy-liner". The whole scene where Peter takes Gwen Stacy to that Jazz club where MJ is working was just hilarious.
First off, this installment was by far the worst of the trilogy. But it wasn't bad.There are tons of flaws in the film. I generally hate the term "flaw", but when a film has upwards of a dozen different things going on at once and the dark side of Peter Parker is showcased with comedy in the majority, I struggle to find a better term.The acting was also at its weakest. Kirsten Dunst is not a great actress, but she seemed slightly uninspired with this one (although I kind of got the same vibe while watching 1 & 2 earlier this weekend). Tobey Maguire was very good as always, Rosemary Harris held together some abysmal dialog, James Franco was a tad stiff, Thomas Haden Church was surprisingly solid (heh), Bryce Dallas Howard seemed useless, Topher Grace was one of the worst casting choices in recent memory, and J.K. Simmons was flawless.All the villains were too much. I thought that the story would have worked much better if the climax would have been Peter ridding himself of Venom, Eddie Brock strung up in his desperation just like the TV series. Instead, the whole process of Brock becoming Venom happens so quickly you lose the grandeur of Spider-Man's most famed nemesis. This makes Venom seem like some random villain, with Grace's unthreatening voice not helping matters.The action scenes, while mostly enjoyable, suffer from the usual overabundance of CGI. During the first half of the film, when that crane slams into one of the skyscrapers, the visuals don't seem passable for an XBox 360 game.It seems as if the villains were secondary, Sam Raimi using them as minor anchors that in turn steer Peter Parker in yet another questionable direction. For this to actually work, you need all other factors (dialog, acting, fan-relation and acceptance) to come into place - they don't.Still, Spider-Man 3 has many redeeming qualities that make it yet another memorable chapter in a truly incredible super hero series. The action scenes are scintillating, with the final battle being one of the coolest things to hit the screen all year.When Harry dies, his face scarred and everyone's emotions running high, the movie peaks perhaps higher than its early counterparts. I'm not sure whether the decision to kill off Harry was a good thing in the long run (as "stiff" as James Franco can be, I somehow enjoy his acting a ton), but for sake of the individual movie, it was heart-wrenching. The scene on the bridge and Uncle Ben's (Cliff Robertson) death are equally impressive.So you've got tons of negatives, with a few overwhelming positives. All in all, with Spider-Man 3 being an action/adventure film, I'm not going to judge the thing on too critical a level, and that allows me to enjoy the thing for what it might be meant to be:And unabashed thrill-ride with good-hearted comedy that, through the bad, you recognize good intention.
I saw the movie today, and overall I give it a 7.5/10.The villains and characters in this movie were great, but the problem is that it is so packed that none of the villain gets the proper screen time to fully develop. But as I said, each villain was done pretty well. Harry's story was very good, Sandman actually had depth and wasn't just some ruthless criminal, and I thought for the little screentime he had, Eddie Brock was done very well. I thought Topher was perfect for Eddie Brock acting-wise, and the scenes with Venom were pretty cool.With that said, Sandman was unecassary as a villain. I liked his character and he was cool on screen, and the angle with him killing Ben Parker was nice, but it took way too much screentime away from Harry/symbiote/Brock. Harry didn't need too much more screentime, but the symbiote needed much more time to bond with peter. The only thing you really got out of Parker with the symbiote was that he became emo, which is far from what it does in the comics and cartoons. It is supposed to greatly amplify Spidey's abilities and rage, and you only see that when he hits Mary Jane. They never explained why Venom had Spidey's abilities, and never built him up as his ultimate villain, which he is.Gwen Stacey could have been a better addition, but again her scenes were rushed so she seemed pointless.Acting was fine on all fronts. I thought Topher, Thomas Hayden Church and Franco were all really good, Dunst and Maguire were decent, etc...With so many sotrylines, there were many holes and unexplained things. So much so that I don't really feel like getting into all of them, but being a comic movie, I guess they are to be expected.Overall, it was a good movie, but nothing had proper time to develop so you weren't as dragged into the story like the first 2.
I saw it tonight. For once I pretty much agree with Nitro. Sandman is just a stupid character all around. I saw it coming. They should have focused entirely on Venom and Harry. The whole idea of Sandman is stupid to me. I mean, when something like Green Goblin or Wolverine or whatever comes around, I'm like alright, that's fine. I can suspend my belief to some extent, but some guy gets sand in his DNA and all of a sudden he's a SAND MONSTER. What a stupid, stupid character.Gwen Stacy was basically meaningless in the plot aside from pissing other people off.Did they even explain where Venom came from in the movie? I don't think they did.You know, as a matter of fact, I don't think any of the characters had any effect on the plot. Pretty much it was just the story of Spider-Man's mood swings.
I'd like to see it just dont have time or feel like wasting my money on it, maybe if it comes on tv someday I'll watch it. the first two were ok movies.
