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

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
I actually genuinely enjoyed spider man 3. I enjoyed the symbiote thing though I wish they would have either made it front and center and venom just basically be an insane deadpool esqe type like he is in the PS1 spiderman game, or just stood on sandman because he's probably enough to carry most of the movie with a little help. I honestly laughed almost to tears when peter started doing the jazz club/hipster cool walk thing because it was rediculous and so far away from regular peter parker it felt like a parody of it and that's what made the scene great. I gave a headshake after overhearing someone say he should ahve kept the black suit because black suits are cool and he was stronger he just needed to be less of a dick and wnated to shout that's the entire point of the black suit. SO I've never had the problem with it the internet seems to.

I'd say of the 3 Riemi's its the weakest but its far stronger than either of the two new ones are (im sure, I havent seen the second on yet but i'm not liking what i hear from people who have that aren't moviebob so there's a little less bias). I wouldn't ever say its a bad movie, on a scale of 1-10 its probably around a 6.8 to me at least.
 

FoolKiller

New member
Feb 8, 2008
2,409
0
0
Whatever anyone does say about it, the main problem still stands. It tries to do too much all at once... failing at it the whole time. Having three villains in one movie is just unfocused. A great movie should tell a story. This tries telling three at once and is barely coherent at best.
 

Piorn

New member
Dec 26, 2007
1,097
0
0
I didn't realize Venom was even a character in Spider-Man 3.
It was just something that exaggerated traits, like alcohol or a canvas for shadow plays.
It's a blank slate, a modifier, not a character. It exaggerates Peters attempts to be cool by making him a douche, and it exaggerates that guys hate and revenge fantasies into a monster, that's it.

I don't think it's even referred to as Venom in the movie!
 

Gerardo Vazquez

New member
Sep 28, 2013
65
0
0
Zhukov said:
someone wearing a mascot costume and commits villainous acts that consist of riding around on a hoverboard throwing grenades.
And this surprises/disappoints you? Do you even read Spider-man? 0_0
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Sorry but no. No way. Just no freakin' way. The first two of those spidey flicks were good, very solid, especially the casting. But 3? 3 was awful! The only good thing in 3 was Sandman. His story, his character arc, his look and they way he was played were all fantastic. But not another single thing about that movie was redeemable. It was either aping what had already been done well in the first two, or else doing something new to terrible effect.
 

nightazday

New member
Apr 5, 2009
43
0
0
Venom only had screentime in the third act and I agree that Peter was suppose to be like that because "blacksuit spidey = Peter on roids" but I still think you are giving sandman too much credit.
 

Snotnarok

New member
Nov 17, 2008
6,310
0
0
I haven't seen the new spiderman films, super hero movies have played themselves into a bit of a loop.
1- Hero gets power, fights doods
2- Hero hates power/power becomes a issue health or otherwise and it either fades or hurts them.
3- Weird spin that divides viewers.

Spiderman 3 only had one good thing going for it, Sandman, he was amazing. Just like Doc Oc, perfectly cast and well done overall.
 

Gerardo Vazquez

New member
Sep 28, 2013
65
0
0
Sejborg said:
Picking Spider-Man 3 over Godfather 3 and The Dark Knight Rises. You just keep surprising me with your reviews Bob. :) Sooo incohesive.
Ah yes. The Batman movie where Batman is on screen for roughly 30 minutes.
 

Trucken

New member
Jan 26, 2009
707
0
0
You know, I never thought Spiderman 3 was bad. It was the worst of the three, sure, but it still wasn't bad. Not saying that it was a piece of art, but a well above-average movie.
 

jdarksun

New member
Nov 3, 2003
87
0
0
Venom boring? Bob, you didn't read Remender's run, did you? Go check out Venom Vol 2, Flash Thompson as Agent Venom is a really, really good book.

Maguire is a great Spider-Man, but his Peter Parker is just slouching through his scenes. You call that "acting the part", but Peter Parker hasn't been a dweeb in over a decade. Nerds are cool now, remember? Regardless, Maguire and Dunst have zero chemistry, and MJ only exists as the worst kind of girl-in-peril.

...yeah, Topher Grace is fantastic. Can't argue there.

You're defending Spider-Man 3 not on its own merits, but by comparing to movies you hate and saying "See? It's not THAT bad!" But it is. Spider-Man 3, as you yourself said, suffers from the studio and director not being on the same page. It's commercialism, not art.

In closing, Everything Wrong With Spider-Man 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrDwtLl1p0A
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
Kumagawa Misogi said:
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.
Well that's wrong. Peter isn't a wuss yeah, but he was still a hard luck hero, the new ones have really pushed that out of the window, 90s Spidey was still inept in some ways.


Andrew Siribohdi said:
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.
You're forgetting Spidey was written almost as an aging character he went from School to college to work, had he not been bitten by the Spider to gain that extra confidence he'd have remained the same.
However the thing every writer before OMD still showed his social ineptitude, that he has the worst luck due to unforeseen events and he was still a nerd in the 90s when he was married as MJ said it quite often.


I think the film WAS bad but had great moments, I like the Harry and Peter fight (you heard cheers by the end), some of Sandman's scenes are great, the Bell tower scene was cool. I just wish the sum of it's parts could make a good whole.

I'll say Raimi's films "gets" Spider-man more than the current stuff.
 

Zombie Badger

New member
Dec 4, 2007
784
0
0
I didn't find the first two Raimi films to be amazing as kid (though I liked them) but like you I just found the third to be just kind of okay myself, which I think was why it was a letdown. It wasn't something that you could just rage about the soul-shattering, cannabalism-inducing horror of it all, it was just forgettable. I disagree about Emo Peter though. It didn't make dislike him so much as the film for just annoying me and I think that if they wanted me to hope he gets rid of it it would have been more effective to have him be genuinely unpleasant at times but once the symbiote-rush fades away horrified at his own actions. I think they attempted this at the end of the nightclub scene but it was such a tonal whiplash that it just didn't work.
 

MPerce

New member
May 29, 2011
434
0
0
Hurray, someone else on the Internet doesn't think Spidey 3 is an abomination!

It's not any good, but it doesn't deserve the vitriol the Internet usually reserves for the Star Wars prequels. To me, it's always been a prime example of a promising movie wrecked by studio politics.
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
The Jazz scene was to long? BLASPHEMY! The Jazz scene is my all time favorite part about the Spider-Man trilogy. You can't have it go for to long! Okay maybe you can, but I still think it's the perfect cringe length.
 

Raesvelg

New member
Oct 22, 2008
486
0
0
Carbo said:
I hope you realize the only reason Spider-Man 4 got cancelled is because Raimi willingly withdrew from the project due to him not considering it possible to finish the movie when Sony wanted it done, and he hated every iteration of the script that the creative team was shitting out for him.
Bear in mind that Raimi also admitted that he was very disappointed with how Spider-Man 3 turned out, and he's the one who made the film. The critical reception for the third film was mixed at best, which coming off of the first two films very high ratings must have been somewhat nerve-wracking for Raimi.

While we only ever really got Raimi's side of things in that whole affair (beyond a "Raimi withdrew from Spider-Man 4 so it's cancelled" from Sony), he makes a rather telling admission in it: When he withdrew from the project, he told them to "Go ahead with your reboot, which you?ve been planning anyway."

Why would Sony want to reboot if they were satisfied with the reception of the third film?

So in my opinion, yeah, he got the boot. He felt he couldn't make a picture good enough so salvage the mess he'd made of the third film, and as such, it killed the Raimi franchise. He may declare it an amicable split, but it's also not as though Sony said "No no, you take the extra year that you need to make the movie you want" because let's be honest, they wound up taking that extra year anyway in making ASM.


Carbo said:
Being a turd isn't stopping Sony's extended plans to continue the TASM series, even after TASM2's cripplingly mediocre reception. Spider-Man 3 was still the movie that made Sony the most money out of any Spider-Man movie, and the only reason that series died is because Sony were terrible at handling a plan B.
Transformers 2 did about as well as Spider-Man 3, so obviously we can agree that being absolute garbage has little relation to box-office success. Particularly when series are involved.

ASM-2's reception is so far actually notably better than Spider-Man 3's, of course. And given Bob's penchant for declaring the original Spider-Man films as being better simply because of the dearth of comparable material at the time, the fact that we're now living in The Age of Marvel would tend to undermine his hatred of the ASM films.

As it stands, despite what I consider obvious and glaring flaws, I rather like the first two Spider-Man films. Hell, Spider-Man was one of the first three films I bought on DVD back in the day. And I haven't been interested enough in ASM to bother seeing either of them in theaters instead of just waiting for it to show up on Netflix.

But that doesn't change the fact that Spider-Man 3 was terrible, and that Bob is trying way too hard to convince people to share in his Raimi fanboyism.
 

Raku-Gosha

New member
Apr 21, 2014
48
0
0
What a fun video! Took a cue from Jim's Movie Defense Force huh? Glad, you skipped out on making a shitty animated opening ha ha.

I was hoping we'd get two escape to the movies this week! and boy was I not disappointed. Was expecting(preferred) a double dipping in two new movies but a retro review of Spider man 3 works. I can just imagine the discussions it's spurred.


OT: I've always been irked by Toby Maguires portrayal of Spiderman and this review sheds some light onto why. He does come off as a cringe-inducing dork. I certainly didn't admire or look up to him, but if that was the point they succeeded marvelously. When he was Spiderman (and kept the mask on) he was indeed cool. Awesome even.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
If we're supposed to buy the Spider-Man trilogy as an exercise in sincerity, the Venom/black costume sub-plot screws that trajectory up royally.

Sure, I can buy that black-outfit-emo-disco Peter is supposed to be some sort of goofy "nerd thinks he's cool" riff, but then in the jazz club everyone thinks Peter is genuinely cool. It doesn't work without some sort of consistency, and the whole thing smacks of the sort of jaded irony MB seems to think distinguishes the film's critics. Understandably, perhaps, if the Venom thing was as crowbarred in to Raimi's movie as the scuttlebutt seems to suggest- a kind of in-movie criticism of an unloved element- but still not laudable.

I agree that the Sandman origin scene was surprisingly effective, though.