Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
38 of 70 people found the following review helpful:
Lower Your Expectations A Bit and Then Have a Blast!, May 7, 2007
This film had awfully big shoes to fill with the highly successful Spider-Man 2 which is arguably the best comic-book film of all time. One can't fault the spidey team for trying to be ambitious here, but they just can't exceed, let alone match, their previous effort. This film is extremely satsifying and deserves to be the blockbuster that it is with its record setting $148 million opening weekend, outdoing Pirates 2 the previous opening weekend champ. Pirates 3 just missed outperforming Spidey 3 by about 10 million recently; therefore, Spidey 3 reigns champ for now on opening box-office revenue.
One has to consider the pressure on this team to continue a story in which they obviously have great affection and in addition to living up to great expectations, these folks also had to heavily consider that this could be the last Spider-Man film as both Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst have made it very clear that they want to move on past Spider-Man before it wrecks their careers like the superhero actors of the past. This may explain the overly complex storyline, the introduction of Gwen Stacey (for future romance should Dunst walk), multiple villains (under the notion that more is always better), and the over-reliance on special effects (which are outstanding). It's all a bit too much even though it is all entertaining, but if this is to be the last Spidey film, they wanted to give it all they had. Too bad it just isn't as good as their last effort, but it is still an outstanding film and great popcorn fun. You will have a blast with this film if you lower your expectations just a bit. I left the theater very satisfied.
Some Strengths: The Sandman effects are outstanding and manage to emote great sympathy for this character who is skillfully played by Thomas Haden Church of TV's Wings and the hit film Sideways. The black blob effects are really spooky. Kudos to James (Annapolis) Franco as Parker's best friend. He was outstanding and believable the entire time.
Some Weaknesses: Too ambitious and too contrived. Spidey being taken over by the black blob wanders back and forth from weird and haunting to sensationally funny to the point of looking like a Saturday Night Live parody of Saturday Night Fever. It became laughably distracting to an otherwise good storyline.
|
|
40 of 60 people found the following review helpful:
Too many crooks spoil the broth, May 9, 2007
"Spiderman 3" falls victim to a common ailment of most hero movie franchises. If one villain is good, then two would be great, But if two would be great, then three would be fabulous! (Think the horribly overstuffed "Batman & Robin" or "Superman III.") So while I really enjoyed the third installment in the Spiderman series, I kept getting the feeling that I was watching what would have made two great movies crammed into a single average one.
For instance, is Thomas Haden Church's Sandman necessary to this film? Granted he lets the dark Spiderman loose for a bit, but both The New Goblin and Venom get their turns as bad spidey bait. It also sucked points away by convoluting plot points and weakly re-writing the circumstances of Uncle Ben's death. The movie's pace would have significantly improved had the conflicts been more limited to Peter, Harry and Eddie Brock. Since the main focus was on Harry and Peter's attention to Mary Jane and Eddie's anger at losing his girl to Peter, it would have tightened the story if Sandman had been saved for later.
The conflict also gives Tobey Maguire a chance to goof around with the role. His moments as Dark Peter Parker are some of the film's funniest (following J.K. Simmons as J. Johah Jameson), and his antics in the jazz-cafe were the ones that got the big reaction in the theater I was watching this. I also found it amusing that when Peter gets bad his bangs suddenly fall down his face and he looks like he should be joining a Fall Out Boy/My Chemical Romance concert.
What all this crowding does accomplish is a shortchanging of character development. How Sandman and Venom form an alliance in zero seconds flat is whiplash inducing as is the almost total lack of development in Topher Grace's character. He's brought in so quickly you wonder how he became so angry so fast in his evolution into Venom. Aunt May is barely in the plot at all; Peter's apartment manager and daughter get more significance. Harry/The New Goblin plays a major role throughout, but his character stages are done so abruptly that, once again, you end up wondering what the heck just happened here.
This probably won't distract you from all the action, and Sam Raimi again delivers the goods. The flights, fights and special effects are astonishing as ever. Spiderman's suits are as sleek and cool as before, and all the gimmicks will keep your eyes on the screen. So will the obligatory Stan Lee cameo. All told, "Spiderman 3" is not a bad movie, but given that both one and two were amazing, it is still a minor let-down.
|
|
17 of 27 people found the following review helpful:
Too many villains make for a scattered plot, May 21, 2007
Spider-Man 3 is everything that its predecessors were not. In other words, where the previous two were shining examples of great movies made from comic books - especially the second - this was not. In the event that anyone ever wonders again if more villains means a better movie, SM 3 should provide the definitive answer: NO. The problem with making a movie with three villain is that you can't ever properly focus on one of them, which then means that unless they're united as one with a common purpose (as in Superman 2), you're left with plot strands and story arcs that intersect and some are left hanging while others are explored. You *forget* that there's something else happening - or, if you don't forget, you wonder why you should care.
The special effects, it should go without saying, were fantastic, and the high production standards and solid acting were what lifted this from being a very, very bad movie to an entertaining one. In the hands of a lesser director, and certainly without the big budget, this might have been the cinematic equivalent of used coffee grounds.
But even so, there were times when I laughed aloud in the wrong places. For example, Spidey encounters his dark side in this film, and much has been made of that in the previews, so much that I don't feel the need to say much more about it. When Peter first saw his dark side, we got a glimpse of that with Maguire pulling his hair down in front of his face in a pseudo goth style (had it been longer). He didn't look like he was in a moment of magnifying his dark side; rather, he looked silly. The film's exploration of Spider-Man's and Parker's dark side delved no deeper than the black suit he wore for a bit. And it was, well, lame. My roommate thought that the film was trying to be funny during most of it, and they probably were. In that case, it truly beggars the imagination. I hope they were trying to be serious, because if anything Maguire was doing while wearing the black suit under dark clothes and messy hair was supposed to be taken seriously, ouch. It didn't work.
Another friend commented that he wanted to channel Tom Hanks from A League of Their Own and remind the filmmakers that "There's no crying in comic books!" Of course, there is, but there was far too much of it in this movie, with little believability to back it up. There was far too much down time - i.e., time where nothing of consequence is happening - for a film with a budget of some $258 million dollars.
Still, I found myself entertained. True, I was quite pleased when the film ended, but I wasn't pulling an Elaine from Seinfeld when she was watching The English Patient with Peterman, squirming in my seat and wanting to get out at any cost. That was likely due to, as I mentioned above, the high production standards.
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|