Escape to the Movies: You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

You Are Wrong About Spider-Man 3

After his review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2, MovieBob takes a look at 2007's supposedly bad Spider-Man 3, directed by Sam Raimi.

Watch Video

you know Bob, all this talk about spidey has gotten me curious, have you seen the spectacular spiderman cartoon greg weisman did a few years back, and if so what did you think of it?

I always rather liked Spider-Man 3, so this is refreshing to see.

This thread is going to get messy, though...

Ehhh...

I still think the movie is pretty bad overall. A lot of the individual pieces work (I've always love douchey Peter and his stupid dances for the same reason Bob does), but that doesn't save the movie. The pacing is still awful, the villains fade in and out of the story at random as it tries to juggle everything, and the MJ/Peter relationship felt like a retread of the first two movies.

It's not an abomination of cinema, but it's not worth praise as a whole. I think Bob's seeing it with rose-coloured glasses.

Spider-Man 3 was amazing. I mean, if you're going to be ridiculous and stupid, go ALL IN. And that movie did.

its sure is not the best of the trilogy but still enjoyable in its own way. but yes, his over cool behavior was retarded and out of place as well. otherwise, yeah, it was still OK.

And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.

Look fine you like the Evil Dead series but Sam Raimi is not some god like director incapable of doing wrong at best his average.

Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.

The Peter Parker from the Amazing Spiderman films is far closer to what people are familiar with from both the 90's and onwards cartoons were lets face it most people had seen Spiderman before the 2002 film and the comics since the 80's.

Oh this will get some vitriol. I'd have to go back and watch Spiderman 3, I can't remember all that much of it. Still I've never wanted to be mad at this film anyway, especially since 1 and 2 were good.

I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking like someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.

Cognitive dissonance Bob. You know all about that so I am surprised at you for your ongoing crusade against this new spider man. Pick on Green Lantern some more that movie was genuinely bad and hateful and a mishandling of intellectual property.

Nope, still as silly and overdrawn as I remembered it.

I agree. This movie isn't as bad as people say it is. That being said, I still think it's pretty bad. Way too many villains who were really uninteresting. Franco was the only decent thing in the movie IMO. Also, I found Maguire's acting to be pretty bad whenever he had to do something emotional.

I still don't get how you hated TDKR so much that you harp on it every chance you get though... Different strokes for different folks I guess.

I find that an interesting take on spiderman 3. That said with regards to the finger guns and the rest of that awful jazz club scene deliberately awful is still awful. I didn't really notice venom much in that movie what bothered me more was sandman. This might be what happens in the comics but the generic science pit he falls into to get his powers would've done nothing but swirl sand around if he wasn't in it. The scientists abandoning any concept of a controlled experiment for the sake of getting off work quicker is ridiculous. My other final complaint about the movie is that dumb breakup scene in the park where Harry sits way off in the distance and just trusts Mary Jane not to say something like "Harry is threatening to do X if I don't break up with you. He's sitting off in the distance watching so after this conversation pretend I broke up with you then go beat the shit out of him later" as opposed to actually doing what he wants.

I'd watch dark knight rises 100 times before I rewatch this. That movie was good aside from the weird everyone fires one round of bullets then run at each other and start punching scene

Zhukov:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.

Your right. Bob is trying to retcon history here. No one ever took the Ramey spider man movies seriously. They were still goofy and entertaining now as they were at release.

"The prospect of Felicity jones dressed up as the black cat will not help... much" Lies. Lies and slander.

I agree about pretty much everything you say in this video. While ASM 2 does have some things that work, they aren't as interesting or risky as any of the things that work in Spider-man 3.

I love the emo peter parker bits, for the same reason you did. I rewatched the film after reading Devin Faraci's piece on it years ago and it totally changed my mind. I love how when he's dancing down the street all the women look at him like he's a weirdo, because of course, he is. Just great.

Looks like Bob has re-joined the Movie Defense Force.

Welcome back to the fold.

Kumagawa Misogi:
And Bob confirms he has really bad taste.

Look fine you like the Evil Dead series but Sam Raimi is not some god like director incapable of doing wrong at best his average.

Also Spiderman in comics has been around for 52 years with Peter Parker being a wuss for less than 20 years of that.

The Peter Parker from the Amazing Spiderman films is far closer to what people are familiar with from both the 90's and onwards cartoons were lets face it most people had seen Spiderman before the 2002 film and the comics since the 80's.

Yes but he didn't stop being a wuss untill he grew up. Marrying MJ, Getting out of College, Gwen's death. It was those things that shook him out of his dweeby highschool funk.

Those things hadn't happened in the movie universe yet.

I remember seeing this on my 14th birthday and thinking it was the best of the three. Got it on DVD the following Christmas, and did not like it as much as I had originally thought. Maybe because I wasn't with my friends laughing about bits of it as I had been in the cinema? I dunno.

Peter Parker dancing down the street is very hard to watch with a straight face, it's embarrassing. Venom was underused and shouldn't have been used unless Raimi was dedicated to focusing on him and him alone (my opinion). Sandman was great, but I was pretty damn annoyed at the retconning of Uncle Ben's death. It made Peter's first act as Spider-Man (apprehending his uncle's killer) completely pointless. Yes, the guy was responsible, but not the actual killer, so placing Sandman as the killer completely negates that scene from the first Spider-Man.

The birth of Sandman scene was amazing, though.

As much as I love Sam Raimi, I was never a big fan of his Spiderman movies. I actually thought one of the weakest parts was the casting. Tobey Macguire just never felt like Peter Parker or Spiderman to me. I actually prefer Andrew Garfield. He has the banter and wit that seemed to be lacking from the Raimi trilogy. Then again, I group with the Spiderman cartoon of the 90s, and only read a few Spiderman comics here and there, so maybe my view is distorted.

I agree with his take on the first two.... 3rd.... ahhhh not as much.

That was the best defense of that dance scene I could imagine though. I think he may have redeemed that part for me.

That part.

I'd really like to see him review the first two now.

Holy fucking shit, that new Spider-Man movie must be the worst damn thing in the world if it has you remembering Spider-Man 3 in any positive way.

I love the first two Spidey movies, but the third is terrible in every way no matter what angle you try to view it from.

It's nice to see a different take on Spider-Man 3, even if I don't entirely agree with it. However, on most points I am totally with you. Peter Parker, or at least this incarnation of him, is a massive dork. It made perfect sense that he would be trying way too hard to be cool and I liked everything right up to the Jazz sequence.

For me there are three unforgivable flaws this film committed which allow it to earn it's reviled status.

1. The Mary Jane dumps Peter to save him. This was tired cliche by the time this occurred and it is handled so poorly. Peter weeping like a crushed child doesn't help either. Seriously, Peter is Spider-Man, why doesn't she just tell him, "Hey, our mutually crazy friend is trying mess with us, go punch him the face." or "Hey, I don't really mean it, Harry is just making me say this, sorry to make you weep like an 6 year old with a skinned knee."

2. Uncle Ben was really killed by Sandman, but it was totally an accident. This IS as bad as Batman's secret Joker origin. Worse even, because the original scene was perfectly handled, and this goes back and retroactively ruins it. Even worse yet, this is completely unnecessary. Just have the Sandman show up at a robbery and hurt one of Peter's friends. Boom: motivation.

3.The entire 3rd act. Seriously, it's terrible. The film by this point just goes by the motions, ticking off everything that happened in Spider-Man2, just done worse. Mary Jane get's kidnapped. Goblin Jr. learns he has the world's worst butler, that his dad was really the jerk, and he get's a last minute change of heart. However, the worst part about is, that the film resolves nothing about the Peter and Mary Jane relationship.

Like I said before, I appreciate a defense of this film, especially with all the dull-witted attacks that get dumped on it. Not everyone who dislikes this film is an idiot, but a majority of them really can't be bothered to say anything more than make a gay or emo Peter joke. However, despite it being a disappointment I will take watching this over Amazing Spiderman any day of the week. S3 is failure that could of been prevented had Raimi insisted on a rewrite and was able to fend off studio interference. Amazing Spiderman is a cynical cash grab made just to keep the license going.

Ashoten:

Zhukov:
I'm so cool and independently minded that I didn't like any of the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies.

Seriously though, when I heard people talking about them years after watching them I was shocked to hear them referred to as "great" and "classics".

I'm pretty sure they lost me with the first movie in when the villain shows up looking someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.

Your right. Bob is trying to retcon history here. No one ever took the Ramey spider man movies seriously. They were still goofy and entertaining now as they were at release.

Wait, you're saying that a guy who was bitten by a spider and then started wearing spandex while fighting crime is supposed to be taken seriously? Someone should have told that to Lee and Kirby.

Yes, yes, yes. I agree with everything you've said in this review, Bob. Tobey Maguire is and always will be Spiderman to me. New Spiderman looks too much like pre-teen twilight.

The subway scene in Spiderman 2 is still one of the best moments in all of the superhero movies that have come out in the 2000s.

Agreed on all points. That's the problem - Spider-man 3 is literally 3 movies crammed into one. Thomas hayden and the sandman story AMAZING. So good. You could actually cut out most of the movie and have a good short film about Sandman. The Goblin storyline if it was fleshed out was a great movie on it's own. Unfortunately I have to agree with Bob for informational and nostalgia purposes I went back and reread or wiki'd the whole venom backstory and maximum carnage nonsense. It's all garbage it really is. Venom as a concept is neat but no writer to this date has been able to add any depth to venom or eddie brock. YOu will never see a section of marvel knights or selfcontained Graphic novel about venom. There's just nothing to say.

I get why people were disappointed with it - I was too for the most part, especially when it ended up being the "last one" for this creative team and universe - but I'm starting to hate how people dismiss this outright when the good things, though few, stand out as magnificent. Mainly, why does everyone forget the Sandman origin scene? He's a goofy gimmicky roster-filler from conception, but put him on screen in the right way and he becomes moving and beautiful. That's a miracle as far as I'm concerned.

Also, is it me or between Bob and Jim we as a society are starting to re-evaluate our fanboy rage and give what we thought were "bad" movies leniency. Hell, with Bob Hoskins passing, I found myself asking why people never mentioned Super Mario in his filmography when, in retrospect, he was one of the best things about it.

No, I'm not wrong about spider-man 3... it still sucks huge monkey balls.

I guess I accidentally clicked on the Movie Defense Force of this week...

And no, MovieBob. I get that your wound after seeing ASM2 is fresh, but that is no excuse to jump to the defense of Spiderman 3.

That movie is awful... really awful. The way they handled the new goblin is a mess, the way they retconned uncle Ben's death 3 times during the movie is a mess, the whole "can't decide if Peter is awful or cool being bad" is a mess, the way they made Mary Jane extra bitchy is a mess, the ending is a mess. The entire movie is such a mess its comparable with Schumacher's Batman movies in the pantheon of sequels so awful they almost singlehandedly burned a successful franchise to the ground.

This is not about a movie not being campy, this is about a movie that can't decide whether it wants to be campy or it wants to be dark and gloomy, and looking schizophrenic as a result...

I haven't seen them but I get the impression that the new Amazing Spiderman movie series is corporate packaged specifically targeting today's ADD-orientated youthful audience. Probably why it irritates Movie Bob so much... myself included though since I'm not a movie critic I don't have to see them.

The defense of "Emo Peter" is pretty much the exact defense I've been giving since I first saw it.
Yes it's stupid, yes it's hard to watch but it makes sense within the frame of reference for the Peter Parker character and I'll give it a pass. I'd still have preferred Venom to have been left out of the film entirely, but oh well.

I didn't hate all of Spider-Man 3 and everything I did dislike about it comes down to cramming too much into the allotted screen time. The Sandman plot should have been given much more development, same for the Harry Osborn storyline.

One of the things that I loved about the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films was that they kept the central "with great power..." theme through the entire film series. Spider-Man's villain roster is frequently full of street level dudes who suddenly find themselves with powers and then proceed to fail spectacularly in delivering on the "great responsibility."

The Amazing Spider-Man series, on top of failing to provide a tolerable Peter Parker continues to fail at this as well. Yes they came close with the Electro story in AMS2 but given how disjointed his plot is, it's hard to chalk that up as a win.

You know, I've heard the "Peter Parker is not cool" argument before. A lot of fans contest that when John Romita replaced Steve Ditko, that Peter became more social able and was not the nerd Ditko drew him to be, at least not anymore.

So, the question remains is how anyone can say Peter is simply 'one thing' when Spider-man has been going on for so long that different artists/writers/editors, etc. make out to be something different each time. I will contest that Spider-man's origin, i.e. being the indirect force that gets Uncle Ben killed always works because it's a self contained morality lesson that was very in-sync with Ditko's Objectivist viewpoints (i.e. Evil happens because we allow it to happen and will eventually punish your selfishness).

so... you are... reviewing spidy 3? ok... fair enough... I didn't like Garfield as peter too... I think Tobe is better Peter... this new hipster-parker is lame... However, Garfield-spidy is REALLY GOOD! I like the punk-cocky-joker/dissor that he is that ONE SCENE battle in school in Amazing 1, almost remind me of the animation of the 90s! given... the final fight is crap... just angry spidy throwing Super fit... I think what I am trying to say is... Tobe is great Peter Parker, Garfield is Great spidy...and I think SONY REALLY NEED TO be respecting the source material... and really care for their villains... 50% more like the first trilogy

Called it, and in 20 years we will be talking about how the ASM's are better than what has come out in the next bunch of Spider reboots. Nostalgia raises the appraisal value of everything.

None of this is surprising. I can count the times I've agreed with ANYTHING MovieBob says on one hand. Spider-Man 3 was garbage.

hermes200:
I guess I accidentally clicked on the Movie Defense Force of this week...

And no, MovieBob. I get that your wound after seeing ASM2 is fresh, but that is no excuse to jump to the defense of Spiderman 3.

That movie is awful... really awful. The way they handled the new goblin is a mess, the way they retconned uncle Ben's death 3 times during the movie is a mess, the whole "can't decide if Peter is awful or cool being bad" is a mess, the way they made Mary Jane extra bitchy is a mess, the ending is a mess. The entire movie is such a mess its comparable with Schumacher's Batman movies in the pantheon of sequels so awful they almost singlehandedly burned a successful franchise to the ground.

This is not about a movie not being campy, this is about a movie that can't decide whether it wants to be campy or it wants to be dark and gloomy, and looking schizophrenic as a result...

I completely agree with this. I was never a particular fan of either of the first 2 Spiderman movies but I hated Spiderman 3. I hated the romance(s), I hated the many many villains (there were, what, 4?) and I hated everything about MJ. Seriously she came across as so needy and pathetic. The totally ridiculous emo scene was the highlight for me because it was the only part of the film that I didn't find mind-crushingly boring. I payed money to see this at the cinema and it probably shares joint worst cinema going experience for me with Pirates 3.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here