 |
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Meta | |
Spider-Man 3: Quick Review
April 30th, 2007
by Guy LeCharles Gonzalez
RELATIVELY SPOILER-FREE! My Buddy DanTM scored passes to tonight’s 5-borough premiere of Spider-Man 3 and we caught it at Bay Plaza here in the Bronx with approx. 100-150 other lucky winners. We’re hoping to do a joint review in the next couple of days, hopefully as a podcast, but real quick, I give it a solid B; maybe B+. Sam Raimi did a great job with Harry Osborne and Sandman, especially their relationships with Peter; Venom worked for me, particularly the way Raimi depicted the effects of the symbiote on Peter and then Eddie Brock, though he over-indulges a bit in the former, almost derailing the middle portion of the movie with the drastic shift in tone; Gwen Stacy ends up being a bit of a disappointing plot device, especially considering she’s presented as infinitely more attractive and appealing than Mary Jane, while Kirsten Dunst puts in another barely tolerable performance as the bedraggled love interest, and Bruce Campbell and Raimi’s brother are once again annoyingly shoehorned into the movie. The special effects are excellent, as are the multiple, well-choreographed fight scenes, the best of which takes place about halfway through, between Peter and Harry, out of costume in Harry’s penthouse. That particular fight has more emotion to it than the many painfully awkward scenes between Peter and MJ that call for one or both of them to cry. There will obviously be no best lead actor or actress nominations coming out of this movie, though one could definitely make a case for James Franco getting a supporting nod for a Golden Globe. The movie’s climax took me by surprise with a couple of unexpected developments that I loved, but I wonder how the fanboys will react to them as I’m pretty sure they defy comic book continuity pretty drastically. More details when Dan and I can work out our schedules, but suffice to say that if you enjoyed the first two movies, you won’t be disappointed by this one. You might not love it, but you’ll get your money’s worth and that should translate to another $300m+ box office. Interestingly, the audience we saw it with offered up lukewarm applause at the end, and there were more than a few chuckles during the aforementioned awkward emotional scenes between Peter and MJ, so there’s a chance that word of mouth could lead to a Superman Returns-like disappointing “hit”. UPDATE (3/4 @ 10:15am): I noticed a couple of Google searches looking for a review specifically in reference to kids, and had someone ask me directly over at my personal blog, so I wanted to address that here. There’s a few intense fight scenes that might be too much for some kids, on par with the final fight scene in the first Spider-Man, where the Green Goblin beat the hell out of Spider-Man before being impaled by his own glider. If your kids handled that scene okay, then they should be fine with seeing this latest installment. Also, Venom might be perceived as a scary monster by more sensitive kids, but he’s not in the movie for very long and there’s literally only two scenes of “scary monster” Venom that last a combined 10 seconds. I suspect that was a purposeful decision on the producers’ part. If anything, younger kids might be more bored by the skewed action:drama ratio than traumatized by the mostly (but not completely) cartoonish violence. If you’re truly concerned and still not sure, it’s always better to err on the side of caution. | |
 |
 | |
15 Comments Add your own
1. Kayode Kendall | May 1st, 2007 at 6:23 am
Would you say it breaks “the curse”?
2. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | May 1st, 2007 at 9:24 am
The comic book trilogy curse? Definitely. It’s flawed, but it’s still a solid, entertaining movie. If Raimi and company moved on right now, and I think they should, they’d be leaving the franchise in good shape.
3. PhoenixFyre | May 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 am
Thank you for this!!! I have a habit of spoiling huge movies for myself…this review didn’t do that at all, and readied me for the movie on Friday. Your review makes the movie sound a little X3-ish…big effects, lukewarm story, contrived plot devices. Am I right?
4. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | May 2nd, 2007 at 6:44 am
It’s better than X3 mainly because it’s longer, so it feels more fleshed out, less rushed. I don’t see it disappointing as many people as X3 did, either.
5. Dylan Garret | May 3rd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Much better than X3. Though in my mind, that doesn’t take much.
Anyway, my mini-review? It was good. Better than the first, not nearly as good as the second. And as hopeful as I was when we first heard he was gonna be in it (hey, I grew up reading Spider-Man in the 80s and early 90s), I gotta say. . . I could have done without Venom. Brock felt perfect while Venom felt tacked-on. It just didn’t seem necessary. I could use more Brock though. They really nailed that prick down to the last snide remark. Too bad he was shuffled off into Venom-land so quicky (in one movie), I liked the rivalry. Definitely lacked the nice pacing of the Peter/Harry relationship.
The relationship between Peter and Harry was done really well, though. Definitely one of my favorite parts of the movie. And the semi-nonsensical “Peter Parker Strut” scene, which may have been pointless and completely out of left field, but was still a gorgeous 45 seconds of screen-time. Maybe I’m just partial to a little funk.
On an Ebert scale? I dunno, 3 out of 4 stars, or something, if we’re just comparing it to its peers. Actually, make that 2.5 on account of Venom looking too much like the shinigami from the Death Note movie.
Seriously.
6. Katherine Dacey-Tsuei | May 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Spidey 3 was entertaining enough, but it was 30 minutes too long and one villain too many. I get the sinking feeling that the writers have included Curt Connors just in case they need a villain for a fourth movie. And why include Gwen Stacy if you’re not going to revisit the storyline for which she’s famous?
7. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | May 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
@Dylan: I actually liked the first better than the second, and rank this one as roughly equal to the second. The first was an unexpected surprise; flawed, but much better than it had any right to be. The timing was right, too, post-9/11, when NY, in particular, needed a superhero to cheer about. Interestingly, my wife hated the second one, so much so that she refuses to watch the third.
@Katherine: Because they already did Gwen’s story in the first movie, only difference being that MJ lived. Worst part about 3 is that I was really hoping they’d kill off MJ. Dunst is a weak actress — not unlike MJ! — and has zero chemistry with Maguire, while Howard is a superior actress and moving forward with Gwen Stacy would solve the problem of signing Dunst up for a fourth movie that she believes shouldn’t be done without her, Raimi and Maguire involved.
8. Dylan Garret | May 3rd, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I agree that Dunst is useless. Get rid of her. I never liked Maguire either, but he handles himself well enough in the role. Doesn’t jerk you right out of the illusion like MJ does.
But I didn’t see why it was worth bothering to name the new girl “Gwen Stacey” when she didn’t really seem to serve any “Gwen Stacey-specific” purpose (if that makes sense). I mean, she was there so MJ and Peter could have some relationship problems to work through. Nothing wrong with that. But she could have been any girl. And I’d probably have preferred her as just any other girl, instead of attaching a name that brings a whole history with it (the most important part of which, as you said, was already tackled in the first movie). Unless she really was being set up for an important role in the 4th. But like Venom, it just felt like familiar characters brought in as fanboy fodder. But then again, I’m all for unfamiliar new characters myself. Just a preference, I guess.
As far as the 1st vs the 2nd movie goes. . . well, I guess that’s just preference as well. I always felt like the 2nd movie felt based more in reality, less suspension of disbelief, just enough nods to the comic roots without being hokey. It just felt like the New York I know (you know, within reason), if it happened to be inhabited by a crime fighting guy with spider-like powers. The 1st and 3rd felt more like a comic book version of New York. It felt right to have a nice scientist using mechanical arms that made sense during an experiment gone wrong. It seemed to make more sense than a symbiote just happening to land near Peter while an escaped convict just happens to fall into some sand-experiment and someone else gets a perfectly timed bump to the head (none of that should be too spoileriffic). . . just didn’t feel as natural as the 2nd movie to me.
I liked the 1st one when it came out, but when I go back and watch it now, it feels a little painful and I’m likely to turn it off halfway through. It was a good comic-book movie. The 2nd one I can still watch and get a little thrill from. It was just a good movie. But hey, to each his own.
Regardless of any problems I have, though, like you said, I don’t think anyone is going to walk away from Spidey 3 feeling like they wasted their money. It’s still a real solid movie, all in all.
9. Kayode Kendall | May 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Sounds like Felecia Hardy would have made for a better romantic foil, especially since she was always more attracted to Peter in the black costume anyway. I wasn’t immediately sold on Bryce Howard as a blond, but she started lookin’ good after she pat on (what she’d eventually discover to be) pregnancy weight, during the production.
10. Guy LeCharles Gonzalez | May 3rd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
@Dylan: I agree with your take on the difference between 1 and 2, though ironically, it was 2’s one major deviation from NYC “reality” — an El in Manhattan!?!? — that hurt it for me. There were a couple of overdone fanboy moments Raimi threw in that annoyed me, too. But yeah, definitely a preference thing as, for me, Spider-Man works best when approached more like a comic book instead of a more realistic, Batman Begins angle.
@Kayode: Felicia Hardy would have made a lot more sense than Gwen, and Howard could have easily pulled off playing her. Would have made the connection with Brock a lot more interesting, too, and potentially set up some interesting future plot developments.
11. zeitgeist | May 5th, 2007 at 10:45 am
I thought the editing was poor, there were several scenes that did not add anything to the overall story line and in fact should have been deleted to cut down on what seemed to be an eternally long movie. I was also disappointed with the choice of camera shots used to film this movie, in paticular extreme closeups of almost all the charcters in any scene with dialog, it was shot as if in preparation for downloads into ipods. Last but not least was Toby’s attempt at being dark or evil, the scenes of Peter walking down the street and the dance sequence were horrible and in my opinion were more appropriate for a movie like the mask. it was either bad directing or a bad performance and was neither serious enough to illustrate the evil that the black goo was transforming Peter into nor funny enough to think it was intentionally performed that way. Finally, come-onnnn enough with the flag already, did they really have to make him land in front of it, I too love this country but would have enjoyed the movie more without their 2 second attempt at being patriotic, I’m just saying…..
12. zeitgeist | May 5th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Whooops, forgot to say that even with all the flaws as a fan of Spidey and of this genre, it was still mildly entertainning and I would not pass on watching this movie………
OK now I’m just saying……..
13. Katherine Dacey-Tsuei | May 5th, 2007 at 11:14 am
enough with the flag already, did they really have to make him land in front of it, I too love this country but would have enjoyed the movie more without their 2 second attempt at being patriotic, I’m just saying…
Me, too–I found that pretty cheesy. Actually, I found the entire key-to-the-city scene pretty cheesy and unnecessary. But I did like the Peter Parker Strut. (Not the nightclub scene, which was just mean-spirited, but the scenes of Spidey channeling John Travolta ca. 1979). It probably belonged in a different movie, but I actually got a good chuckle out of that sequence.
14. Kayode Kendall | May 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Enough with the flag? How about enough with the multiple scenes of “Maskless Spidey”!! I mean jesus?!? That’s been my only consistent beef with the whole franchise! There were just far too many scenes where Spider-Man’s fighting with his face exposed! Resucing MJ from thugs in the first film(mind you, that scene was preceded with a shot of Spider-Man following them all into the alley with his mask ON!), The subway sequence in Spider-Man 2, not to mention the gratuitous Jesus Christ Pose, The showdown with Sandman, etc. Mus EVERY villain find out who Spider-Man is? I forgive it in the fist film, because that was a big catalyst for a lot of other stuff, but it’s gotten quite ridiculous, the number of people in the movies who have seen Spider-Man with his mask off.
15. Jason | May 5th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Sam Raimi really didn’t know what to do with this film. Between Avi Arad yelling out, “Put Venom in it — that’s what the geeks want” to him botching up the Sandman storyline, they really brought this series down from its solid foundations. The edited fight sequences were horrible, the FX were…eh (I loved how they kept recycling the same Spidey moves from previous films. Jesus, get a new FX Dept!), the acting (with the exception of Gwen) was sorely lacking and the story was simply sloppy.
Look, I never thought this was the greatest comic book series but it was certainly better than Marvel’s other outings (Hulk, Ghost Rider, Elektra, Fantastic Four). My point is that if you don’t have a solid script, you don’t have diddly squat. Thids movie wanted to do some much and failed miserably trying to bite more than it can chew.
They never fully explained Venom. It was just a thing from space. OK. Why did it crash there? Where did it come from? What’s so bad about sound? Sandman had a sick daughter but that subplot went nowhere and was just idiotic in the scheme of things (Since when does sand fly without wind? What was the whole point of experimenting on sand to begin with?). MJ was getting jealous of Spidey’s popularity and Spidey allowing Gwen to kiss him @ the parade were things that were totally out of character for those…characters.
The Point? Be truthful to the characters. Don’t deviate from who they are. Make sure you’re story follows a logical path, not try to fit pieces of a puzzle that don’t fit at all.
Marvel needs to step their game up when making movies. I don’t mean put them out for the public just to make a ton of cash. I mean really put care and some sense of quality into the multi-million dollar movies they’re making. If they don’t care, why should I care about their future releases?
Spidey acted out of character before he had the suit on and it made no sense. Then he puts on the suit and wants to be Mr. Bad Ass / Tony Monero from Saturday Night Fever / Fred Astaire. This is a superhero movie, right? I thought I went to a theater to a real movie, not some Sci-Fi channel B-movie. Please!
*HELL THE SPIDER-MAN ANIMATED SERIES OF THE EARLY 90s DID A 1000% JOB OF EXPLAINING VENOM AND I DIDN”T HAVE TO PAY $11 SEE THAT STORY PLAY OUT!*
Plus, I’ve hated how this series somewhat copied the Superman story formula:
1. Superman: The Movie- Hero kicks ass but doesn’t get the girl. Same in Spidey 1.
2. Superman II- Hero wishes to become normal to be with girl 100% of the time only to realize the world needs him and goes back to being Hero. Same in Spidey 2.
3. Superman III: Supes becomes involved with another woman, is bad due to foreign object and fights himself. In Spidey 3- Spidey involves himself with another woman, becomes bad due to foreign object (at least Supes III tried to explain the objects origin [but that doesn't excuse the fact that its still a bad movie])and eventually fights himself a la Venom.
Be true to the characters. Show me something original and new. Don’t butcher it just to get a few bucks.
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed