Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ForteBass]

I'm disappointed in you nerds. Search function showed ain't none of you made this thread. That said, all I can say about this film is this:

MOTHER FUCKER!!!

SERIOUSLY: SPOILERS AHEAD. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT DON'T READ ANY FURTHER

[godinpants]

I saw it on thursday.

I was somewhat dissapointed in it.

Am i allowed to post spoilers? well they will be small.

They seemed to jump through things so quickly.

Like the sandman hardly had any sort of crime spree. he had one sand storm/bank robbery.

Also, when venom and sandman had taken mary jane to that building, there was no "oh no spiderman is evil" thing that i expected.
It was just on the news "not spiderman guys, some other wierd thing"

Although i was amused at parkers progressively growing fringe that peaked when he flicked it out of his face after something happened, not sure what.



Also, spiderman needs more jazz piano.

[Johnny C]

My spoiler is "this movie eats money and laughs at you."

[Luke C]

Well I enjoyed it. Though they didn't need all 34 plots in one film.

[TrueNeutral]

Yeah, I enjoyed it. I suspect I would have enjoyed it more if Venom wasn't strong-armed into it.

[Aimless]

I was satisfied with the experience =)

A lot of people seem to have had problems with the love-story. Me, I didn't mind the love-story at all. It was just that twit Toby I had a problem with--the romance actually let Kirsten Dunst do something besides falling from things (and she was CUTE! I don't usually like her bu I just wanted to MWAH MWAH MWAH her all over!), but all it did for Toby was provide more chances to whine. In the first movie, he was Peter Parker, but he hasn't grown one bit since, it seems. Bit of a shame (still, he was kickass in his dance-scenes).

Apart from Parker, most things were cool. The supporting cast was awesome, and Topher Grace was actually a pretty good Eddie Brock (and an okay Venom, although I think he shoulda been hella bigger). Thomas Hayden Church as Sandman was perfectly cast, and I'm just disappointed they turned him into some speechless sand-monster for much of the movie. Harry was actually great, this time! You could tell he was having a lot of fun.

Of course there were a lot of things that should've stayed on the cutting room floor, or never even made it onto film, but, all in all, it was a v. enjoyable film and def. worth the ticket-price. Lotsa action, LOTS of laughs (Bruce Campbell's best cameo yet, for starters), and FINALLY a HOT Gwen Stacy =D mmmm.

Right, verdict: recommended, for spider-man fans and their girlfriends

Cheers!

-- P

PS. But this is the THIRD movie with Connors and STILL no hint of Lizard! GRRR!

Also, I love their amazing idea for turning Good Peter into Evil Peter by emo-ing up his hair =P hehehehehe.

EDIT: Sorries, I'm smiley-blind!

[ForteBass]

How many fucking emoticons can you put into one god damned post?

[Dimmukane]

I liked it.  Everyone in the theater clapped when Bruce Campbell did his part.  And I found out they're making a sequel to Bubba Ho-Tep.  So I'm happy.

[ummmkay]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the butler dude didn't just tell Harry ages ago that his father killed himself. Wouldn't that have saved everybody a lot of trouble?

[Barmymoo]

Not seen the film, but surely that would have reduced the screen time by so much that it would make it economically disasterous?

[0bsessions]

It was decent, but I won't go see it a second time (And I'm an appalling fuckin' comic nerd who went apeshit with delight over the second movie).

I'm the opposite on one posters' opinion: ninety percent of the stuff in this movie I disliked can be directly related to Kirsten Dunst's upped screen time. She was abysmal and she seemed to suck the life out of every single scene she appeared in, short of the climax. It was almost as if George Lucas stepped in and said "Don't worry, Sam, I'll handle the romance stuff. I've got experience with it!" The only tolerable scenes she did were the ones where she was reduced to her role from the prior two: trapped by the villain and screaming. Mary Jane's always been represented as a strong but ditzy girl. In these movies, she's portrayed as weak and mousish, more akin to Gwen Stacy in the comics. Meanwhile, Gwen in the movie was so much like Mary Jane in the comics, it was disturbing. I honestly wonder why they didn't just save some money on hair dye (Dunst being a natural blonde and Howard being a natural redhead) and cast Dunst as Gwen way back in the first one and kill her off now to bring in Howard as MJ (I actually enjoyed seeing her act and would rather see her around in the future than Dunst).

For what was one of the darkest periods in Spider-Man's existence, there was WAY too much camp. I should be laughing at Spidey quips and one-liners, not the absurdity and stupidity of Parker doing a fucking dance number. The symbiote enhances your own characteristics, it doesn't give you jazz piano mastery! The action scenes and the dark moments were all great, but about 75% of the character driven plot was just awful.

Maguire, while I'm not huge on him (I'd rather see Elijah Wood as Parker), did a great job with the darker scenes as Spider-Man.

Topher Grace surprised the Hell out of me. I always enjoyed him on That 70's Show, but I didn't see him as being cut out for the role of Brock. They took liberties, obviously, but they nailed the core of the character: a slimey prick who fucks up and then blames Spider-Man for it when he's outed on it. He sold the role for me and I was quite pleased with it.

Church was fantastic, too. I could've done without the end to his plot (Though that's hardly his fault, just sappy writing), but the Sandman in general was great.

Harry FINALLY came into his own. I, unlike many, really liked Harry throughout the trilogy. You could see him being slowly transitioned into his eventual role and it all culminated really well here.

Overall, not a bad movie, but quite disappointing when held up to the standard set by the last one.

[Jimmy the Squid]

I really enjoyed it actually. That being said I am told I have a pretty low standard for most things Marvel, I actually found some redeemable features in Hulk and that X-Men: Evolution series. But still, I didn't go in there expecting a masterpiece of cinematics I just expected some explosions, a lot of screaming and awesome stunts. I believe those expectations where met.

While I'm not a huge fan of Tobey Maguire I actually quite like him as Peter Parker/Spiderman. I took it that he did most of the growing in-between films. In this one he started out being cocky and kind of a jerk so maybe he's been going backwards. I really enjoyed the cheesy moments although the jazz piano was a little much. The only real criticism I have is that the emo hair should have been accidental rather than him deliberately pulling the fringe down, it made it seem like too much of a concious choice to be an arse on his part.

Kirsten Dunst I can't really be objective on as I'm a little googley-eyed when it comes to her but I think she held up ok in this one at the very least. She is maybe a little stronger as the damsel in distress though. Mary-Jane was a little too whiny for me in this one but really, that was the character that was really well acted so my problem was more with the writers.

Bryce Dallas Howard has the same effect on me. I'm not all that familiar with the Gwen Stacy character in the comics but as far as I can see she did really well with what she was given so I have no complaints.

James Franco was once again awesome and has actually shown palpable character growth but again I think that is partly the writing. He was really sweet and quite malevolent so I was again impressed. I would have liked a little bit more of the new Goblin suit and glider though. On a separate note, was he just a New Green Goblin (even though he wasn't green) or was he meant to be called Hobgoblin? I always get confused with those two characters.

Thomas Hayden Church was really very good as Sandman and again there's not much I can say except wondering if Sandman could actually travel around in a sand cloud in the comics? It's always fun when a villain is vaguely redeemable at the end.

Topher Grace was amazing! I really can't say enough about how good his performance was as Eddie Brock Jr. He was slimey and a total prick and also quite pathetic I just wish he'd had more screen-time as Venom (and that Venom was actually named in the film) I stand by my claim that to really do justice to a storyline this complex (in terms of the sheer number of things to get through) they should have said fuck it and gone for three full hours instead of keeping it under two and a half.

I really liked this film and am seeing it again this week and maybe once more after that. It'll be great! I am still a little disappointed with the lack of the Lizard even though Dr Conners has been in two films and mentioned in one. Also, how can Brock be described as the new guy when the alluded to him in the first one?

This is going to be such a good year for movies, Rise of the Surfer (which I really hope will be good), Order of the Phoenix, Transformers and Pirates are all going to be attended by me. Fun times!

[WelshPete]

 

[0bsessions]

Nah, Gwen was nothing like that in the comics. If you look into it, they pretty much entirely swapped the characters of Gwen and Mary Jane, short of Mary Jane's acting and Gwen's aptitude for science.

In the comics, Gwen was always the quiet, modest and proper girl. She was VERY smart (A science major of some sort, Chemistry, I think), but not particularly commanding or powerful of a woman. She was more often the damsel in distress than not.

Meanwhile, Mary Jane was always the party girl and demanded to be the center of attention through her actions. She tried her hand at acting AND modelling and was a very strong and independant woman who was actually very afraid of committment for the longest time, never holding down a steady boyfriend really until she and Peter got married. She was originally introduced to be pretty much the direct opposite of Gwen.

When you take into account that Kirsten Dunst is a natural blonde and Bryce Dallas Howard is a redhead, it makes me wonder why Raimi didn't just cast them the other way around. If I had my way, I'd have thrown Dunst in as Gwen in the first movie and killed her off true to the comics to make way for the more interesting Howard/MJ to come in.

Gwen was never a particularly interesting character. When she was around, she was nothing beyond being "Spider-Man's girlfriend" and in death she's nothing but "That girlfriend of Spider-Man's who died." I'm not sure if it's Dunst's acting or poor scripting/directing that made the movie MJ utterly boring. I may not care for Dunst, but I'd bet on the latter, considering she managed to pull off a strong and aggressive female lead when she was just a kid, but was unable to do it here.

[thepugs]

For all the people who didn't enjoy it because it didn't stay true to comics...STFU.

Honestly, the majority of comic book movies use well-known characters and basic relationships, and are TRYING TO MAKE MONEY, NOT A GOOD COMIC-BASED FILM.

If you've seen the first two, or the X-men movies, or the Incredible Hulk, or Fantastic Four, or the Punisher, or...you really should have figured it out by now.

It's like going into a building that advertises crotch-punching, and coming out for a third/fourth/umpteenth time going, "MAN, I DIDN'T REALLY THINK THEY'D DO IT!"

Just enjoy the movie for what it is, and read the comics for the actual stories.

[ForteBass]

Who in here said they had that problem? Please do not rant and rave at people over things that haven't been said... at all.

[0bsessions]

Just enjoy the movie for what it is, and read the comics for the actual stories.

And for those of us who looked at it on its own merits and still didn't think it was all that great? What of us?

As someone else pointed out, nobody was bitching that the problem was the fact it differed from the comics. The problems for me resulted from poor acting from the two lead actors and an overabundance of camp from what was supposed to be a a rather dark movie.

Beyond that, it should hold at least a good deal of similarity to the comics. Take for example Catwoman. If you're going to change so much that the property is no longer recognizable, why even bother paying for the license?

If I was upset about "differing from the comics" I'd bitch about the fact that Harry wasn't addicted to LSD and was riding a glorified flying snowboard as opposed to applauding the incredible job James Franco did with the role.

If it was just about the comics, I'd bitch that Eddie was originally a reporter who didn't even work at the Daily Bugle to begin with and I'd be bitching as to why the Sin Eater was nowhere to be found or the fact Topher Grace is a rather small guy. But no, I appreciated that they got the true spite that's always been the essence of the character.

It's not the fact that MJ is like Gwen for the sake of it that bugs me, it's the fact that MJ was a painfully boring and two dimensional character in this movie and she sucked any excitement out of every scene where she had a speaking part in the movie.

Maybe, instead of telling people how their reasons for disliking the movie are wrong, you should contribute something to the thread such as your own opinions of the movie.

[thepugs]

In these movies, she's portrayed as weak and mousish, more akin to Gwen Stacy in the comics. Meanwhile, Gwen in the movie was so much like Mary Jane in the comics, it was disturbing.

Yes, people are complaining about the differences between comics and movies.

Obsessions, I didn't say that your opinions weren't valid.  I don't even disagree with you; I'd have liked to see a bigger Venom, or the Sin Eater or the Lizard, or even the Chameleon, and I dislike that they're killing off the significant villians.  I do think you did the movie justice by analyzing it without relation to comics before addressing those issues; it just seems a little out of place, talking about the comics.

And I did enjoy it as a movie, I do agree that MJ was a fairly weak character this time around, I didn't like Gwen Stacy as a character, and I thought that a lot of the evil/confident Peter was too over the top.

[RobbieOC]

It was a fun movie. It wasn't perfect, but it was fun.

I thought Venom was great. I would have liked to see more, but I think what they did with him was fine. Sandman has always been a more interesting character to me than Venom, so I'm glad he got lots of screen time. Since both villains were perfectly cast, I had no problems with the way they were handled.

I do wish that they had had Doc Conners mention something about the sound to Spidey instead of him figuring it out on his own. In the comics it was Reed Richards that figured it out, and that's basically the role Conners has played throughout the series. The scene in the church was great.

And the butler. Oh, the butler. It was so bad I can't dislike it. I know it doesn't make sense ...or does it?

I wish they had cast Topher Grace as Peter Parker from the beginning.

[doki]

meh.  the three stooges chase scene was AWESOME, Harry came good, Sandman came good,

Venom got maybe half an hour then was destroyed.  not fucking happy
I mean as a whole i enjoyed it, and yes, Topher was much better than i thought he was gonna be, but for christs sake.  Venom was an AWESOME character, deep, complex, and absolutely batshit insane.  here he was just an angry kid.

while i understand the main mission was to show the struggle WITHIN peter, Venom should have been allowed to escape

thats all i got right now

[adritha]

I think it would've been waaaay better if they hadn't taken the predictable route *shrug* ...apart from that i was pretty neutral

[epifreak]

I have two major complaints with the film. The first is symbiote spider-man = the amazing emo-man. I think you all know what I'm talking about.

The second major complaint is that venom was pretty much a bit part before being (possibly) written out for good. Venom is (for me) the defining villain in the Spider Man sagas. He is Spider Man's ultimate foil. Venom vs. Spidey is a big part of the reason this series meshes with me. Sandman is a sideshow at best. I really don't care about the villain, especially when Venom is the other character in play. Oh well, at least it wasn't another fucking goblin; they always bored me.

Oh, so my prediction for Spider-Man 4: Carnage. The reasoning is this: Movie 1 starts things off with a random villain, in this case, the green goblin. Movie 2 steps things up a notch by including the whole questioning of responsibility plot. This movie incorporates Venom, possibly the most important villain in the Spider Man saga. There's a clear escalation of drama here. The only way I can think of to increase that would be to include carnage (and deus-ex-machina venom back in).

[0bsessions]

You've obviously never been much of a Spider-Man comic fan if you're calling Venom potentially the most important villain of the Spider-Man saga and "bored" of the Goblins.

Venom had a total of, MAYBE a dozen appearances as a villain and didn't really get much of any real depth until just before they decided to ditch Eddie Brock entirely in favor of Mac Gargan (The new Venom/Old Scorpion).

He was created to be Spidey's arch-nemesis, but he never really did anywhere near as much as the Green Goblin who has, thus far, killed Parker's first love (Gwen Stacy), corrupted his own son to destroy Spider-Man, faked Aunt May's death in order to fuck with Spidey, poisoned MJ to cause her to have a miscarriage, kidnapped and attempted to brainwash Parker into becoming the new Green Goblin, kidnapped Flash Thompson (A recovering alcoholic) and force-fed him liquor then put him behind the wheel of an Oscorp truck and crashed it into the school Peter worked at (Also rendering Flash braindead for a long while), etc...

Venom has tried to kill Spider-Man six or so times and spooked MJ once. There's a reason Raimi didn't use Venom much: he covered pretty much the entirety of Venom's career in that small plot. In practice, both Harry and the Sandman have always been significantly more interesting and fleshed-out. The only depth Venom ever developed was when Paul Jenkins gave him cancer a few years ago.

[MattBurns]

That's an interesting observation actually,

Clearly the Green Goblin is spidey's greatest foe, but it's Venom that has been captured by popular culture.

I mean everyone knows who Venom is, and most think he's Spider-man's ultimate nemesis. it's only the die hards that know better.

but in the end. perception is reality. if 90% of the people think something, even if it's wrong. it's right.

[0bsessions]

Yeah, but then the public gets all righteously indignant when they feel it was abused, when it is, in fact, true to form. We just saw an example up above. Raimi pretty much nailed Venom perfectly. Instead of people bitching that the movie guys did a poor job on a great character, they should actually look into it and realize he was never much of an interesting character to begin with.

And, actually, Doc Ock has always been the overall public's perception of "Spider-Man's greatest nemesis." Look into the old cartoons and video games, it's always Doc Ock. In practice, he was a major opponent, but never as big as the alternative media portrayed him. If you look around, you really don't see Venom ever having a particularly big role in any medium outside of the Maximum Carnage and Ultimate Spider-Man games.

[MattBurns]

didn't the black suit story line go on for a long while though?

it's been a while since I've read comics, but I remember him in the black for a long time. I was disappointed when he went back to the red and blue.

[0bsessions]

He wore a black costume for a while, but the Symbiote storyline itself lasted just a few months. Starting in Secret Wars (December '84) and, Spider-Man got the costume and returned to earth (Amazing Spider-Man #252). It started to act up and he seperated from it within a few issues of returning to Earth with the help of Mr. Fantastic (#259 and crossing over into Fantastic Four). In Web of Spider-Man's debut issue (April, '85), the symbiote escape and tried to rebond with Spider-Man and he went through the infamous Church tower scene where he thought he'd killed it. It wasn't revisited again until a full three years later in a storyline starting in ASM #298 where Venom had some small cameo/shadowed appearances leading up to his first appearance in #300. All told, the full story is contained in less than twelve issues' worth of stories. As a guage of that in comics terms, the Phoenix saga in X-Men lasted from about X-Men #99-#137 (About twelve issues in there sidetracking for the most part). Brock wasn't even a real noteworthy supporting character until after he became Venom, mostly being kind of an afterthought.

Spider-Man did wear a black cloth costume for about three years, though. He wore it pretty consistently from the time he seperated with the symbiote (ASM 259) up until Mary Jane asked him to get rid of it after #300.

[ForteBass]

This is not a comic book thread. This is a movie thread.
Discuss the movie. There's a forum dedicated to discussing comics. Take it there.

[thehoopiestfrood]

I haven't seen the movie yet but I want to. I hope I'm not disappointed.

I will admit all my knowledge of Spiderman pretty much comes from the animated series from the early 90s.

[doki]

i just think, while we are talking about Venom, who by the way was a big reason to get into spiderman when i was a kid, it would be nice if he had have survived.  Raimi said he wouldn't do another spidey and so did maguire, so this trilogy is closed to me, but no one ever said anything about Venom.  you have to admit when he came into his own (specifically Maximum Carnage, but he had some good stuff going for him as an antihero) he grew into a fun, albiet not too deep character.

i just think a Venom movie would be cool is all, and now that's not gonna happen

[qtownstegy]

I saw the movie with a bunch of friends and my gal and the best parts were the commentary we added to the movie. Overall, the movie wasn't bad, but it was a bit dull in parts. None of us really liked the ending to the movie because it was too quick compared to all the relationship drama that the movie contained.

[epifreak]

Okay, perhaps I should ammend my statement. Venom is one of the most stylish spider man villains. Sandman is a brute, whereas venom is a foil to spidey in the sense that he is more-or-less spider-man's equal in all the same ways. His skills line up with spider man's making the confrontations between spidey and venom (to me) more interesting than many of the other villains. I've never been much of a comic fan at all, so my perceptions of the saga are primarily driven by a combination of heresay and the cartoon show I grew up with. To me, venom is interesting because he is, in effect, spider man's doppleganger. That, and the whole venom/spider-man/carnage triangle is something I remember being interesting.

I believe my distaste for the goblins stems not from their actual use, but from the re-damn-diculous costume they all wear. Seriously, they look silly. Venom has fashion sense

[Manda8706]

Just enjoy the movie for what it is, and read the comics for the actual stories.

If I was upset about "differing from the comics" I'd bitch about the fact that Harry wasn't addicted to LSD and was riding a glorified flying snowboard as opposed to applauding the incredible job James Franco did with the role.

If it was just about the comics, I'd bitch that Eddie was originally a reporter who didn't even work at the Daily Bugle to begin with and

Haha...thats so great...I was thinking that as I read this.

I'm not so upset over all this as I am to how easily they killed Harry and Eddie...they were two great characters.

I don't think they made Harry the Green Goblin or Hobgoblin...he was just.....a bad guy...lol....At least thats what I got.

I wish they would have mentioned VENOM....and pumped him up...that was a big thing in the comic, thought Topher did a great job...I think he nailed it...I was not expecting that....I didn't think he could pull it off...but he did, and better than anything I could have expected.

[0bsessions]

Okay, perhaps I should ammend my statement. Venom is one of the most stylish spider man villains. Sandman is a brute, whereas venom is a foil to spidey in the sense that he is more-or-less spider-man's equal in all the same ways. His skills line up with spider man's making the confrontations between spidey and venom (to me) more interesting than many of the other villains. I've never been much of a comic fan at all, so my perceptions of the saga are primarily driven by a combination of heresay and the cartoon show I grew up with. To me, venom is interesting because he is, in effect, spider man's doppleganger. That, and the whole venom/spider-man/carnage triangle is something I remember being interesting.

I believe my distaste for the goblins stems not from their actual use, but from the re-damn-diculous costume they all wear. Seriously, they look silly. Venom has fashion sense

You just unintentionally summed up the problem with comics in the nineties. I'm going to throw up a post about this in the comic forum, too. Anyone who's genuinely interested in my response to this can glance over there, as I don't feel like getting warned for meandering off topic.

That said, I think Venom was one of the better handled parts of this film. He was actually more interesting than his comics counterpart (And about eight times moreso than in the abysmal cartoon) and Grace did a phenomenal job with the role.

Here's hoping the next director asks Grace and Howard to come back to take on the lead roles. They can't do much worse than Maguire and Dunst.

[Duchess Tapioca]

This movie really disappointed me. I know I'm being really hard on it just because it is a disappointment in a long string of disappointments, but still. it is DISAPPOINTING! I really expected it to be a good movie because I have heard of this "Spiderman" dude before and so he is supposedly pretty famous, which means somebody somewhere probably put enough of their heart and soul and time and effort in to the character to make him a memorable kind of dude, not just some sort of dude that got bitten by a radioactive spider and is now awesome. Apparently though, these sort of standards of effort are not required in movies right now!

This Spiderman guy is supposed to be some sort of super-hero, a hero that is super. Above and beyond the standards of ordinary hero that fulfills his responsibility of helping people when they are in need when he has the capability of helping and not anything better to do, but SUPER. This Spiderman dude is just a regular dude. This is perfectly alright in real life, because I do not expect anyone to be perfect, or even the slightest bit close, but this dude is a fictional character, on the tv, and a role model for small childerns who need role models.

It seems like today people who are trying to write stories (or rewrite them to put them on the tv) do not seem to be making a "good guy" to put on the tv. A character that is trying to do his or her best to be a good person is not something that I am seeing a lot of right now. Maybe people right now think that a really good guy on the tv is patronizing or people don't want to see it because it's too much to live up to and they want someone realistic to relate to, but gosh if that is the problem just go ahead and try to have more of the traits you admire. Maybe it is just that people don't like to write characters that are even borderline one-sided, because they want to write things that are more complicated, I really don't know!

This Spiderman dude really didn't do anything good except save people from buildings, he is really not a great dude. He is kinda mean to his girlfriend and wants revenge on somebody. I had to have it explained to me by somebody that read the comics that the suit is supposed to make Spiderman a really bad dude, and it's supposed to be a personality change, because really he kept acting a lot like he was before. And he even chose to put the suit on, it wasn't like all "I'm gonna get you Mr. Spider, and there's nothing you can do about it!" and spider man is all "Touche!" It wasn't like that at all. All the "bad" guys were far morally superior to Spiderman!

I guess that is good though, you have some positive role models in a guy made out of sand and a dude on a flying skate board. But the guy on the flying skate board didn't even have a character development type turn-around of him being good, he only stoped wanting revenge on Spiderman because he figured out it wasn't Spiderman's fault, not because he really decided that friendship and lady-rescuing is more important than revenge.

And for girl-type role models. What is up with the MJ lady? She is all "I am so dejected, because I can't sing on broadway anymore and be a big success" Yeah, that's kinda sad, but still you get to sing in front of people in a restaurant where the rest of the staff is nice to you and looks out for you. Gosh, it is not that bad. You are being a role model that says "Other people have to think you are really great at what you love for you to be happy, you can't just do what you love and have that be good enough." That is no good at all.

Otherwise, that sandman dude was awesome, it would have made me happy if he could have gotten some money for his daughter, but it was fun to watch him smash buildings and be a pretty nice guy. Also when Peter was being all "I'm bad, so bad" he was pretty darned funny, especially the part about the cookies. Overall I guess the problem was just all the other characters saying how nice of a guy Peter is, and them him really not being nice one bit. I watched some interviews, and I found out it was really the directors fault that I did not like it. He goes to school with my boyfriend's cousin, and apparently he is a cad.

[0bsessions]

I can't tell what of that post is serious and what is a joke, but it's probably the most amusing thing I've read all day. I was ready with an entire little diatrabe about how much she missed the point of the character, but I'm pretty sure I just missed the point of the entire post.

[epifreak]

Not to mention summing up all that I don't like about Superman. Seriously, superhero implies that the character has some trait that puts them somewhere above human capability. Spider Man is actually on the lower end of the power spectrum that this can run, and that's why I like him. In the case of Spider Man, you're watching a human guy with a little something extra doing his best to make the world a better place. Sure he's not possessed with *deepen voice appropriately* All Cosmic Power!! itty bitty living space. Rather he's slightly above humanity, which makes the story more compelling. If you want to watch godlike figures duke it out, check out Superman, but don't expect much in the way of struggle. Superman is a case of "God fights human. God wins. Woopdee-fucking-doo!"

[Dimmukane]

I like Batman for the same reason...he's completely human, he's just in perfect physical condition, and takes on villains who are still essentially human (some are borderline).  It just makes him seem like more of a hero (to me at least).

[Jimmy the Squid]

I'm pretty sure the reason film writers try to create complex characters is because 1) every critic who watches the film will be all "Omg one-sided shallow characters wtf u suck biatch" (but obviously with proper English) and 2) one-sided characters are just fucking boring.

Duchess i think you might be missing the point of the whole Spiderman/Peter Parker thing. He's a regular guy with regular faults who fights crime on the side. Besides, they started off the film with him showing he was already a little bit of a jerk, and how could you not be if an entire city thinks you're the shit? The suit just amplified that trait to the point where it was aggressivly obvious.
Obviously I am quite biased as I really did love this film and it was by far my favourite out of the trilogy but there is way more to most good heros than the whole "I am incredibly super and can prevail in the face of any obstacle without getting a hair out of place!" thing.

As for the morally superior villains, a good villain isn't totally evil which is what makes them more accessible to the audience but more importantly, it makes them more fascinating if they have a modicum of redeemability. A throwaway villain is the one who is just pure evil with no sense of human decency. In those cases it's fun to watch them get the shit kicked out of them til they go away. If the villain is somehow likeable, if the audience wants them to be "saved" for lack of a better word then it makes them a whole lot more interesting.

This is all subjective and it's hard to tell whether Duchess was being entirely serious but either way, the above is how I feel in regards to the issues addressed.

[alongwaltz]

Finally saw this last night and I don't understand all the negative reviews.  It doesn't seem altogether different than the other two.

The action scenes were awesome, especially the first fight with the Goblin.  The techniques used to fight Sandman were creative.  Eddie Brock was the perfect sleazebag.  And the movie was hilarious.


I still don't understand the point of Gwen Stacy, though.  Why introduce her in the third one?  Why not have her in the second half of the movie at all?  Why have her live?  If she's not the love of Peter's life or the horrible tragedy he couldn't prevent, she serves no purpose.  That's all she was in the comics.

[Lines]

Although I think they shoved a few too many characters and plot lines into one movie, I liked it. I am a bit disappointed that this will be the only one with Venom in it. He was a good villain. As waltz said, I'm not really sure why Gwen was in there either. But it did have the same feel as the other movies and I certainly liked it better than the second movie (which was good, I was just never a fan of Doc Oc).

[Gryff]

I did not enjoy this movie much at all. The plot was somehow both overly convoluted and extremely shallow - why go to the trouble of introducing three villains if you're not going to explore any of them in any depth? The Sandman looked cool (dig the green stripes) but his character had absolutely nothing to him except that he needed money for his daughter and he was "not a bad guy", he "just had bad luck". Against popular opinion (I think?) I had high hopes for Topher Grace as Venom, but I just felt like I was watching Eric Forman be a smartass on That 70s Show most of the time (the scene where his photo is proved to be a fake almost got it right - more pathetic, less goofy). The emo hair was just a terrible, terrible idea, and the bit where Parker was doing the double-guns and dancing in the street was completely absurd and had me very confused about what kind of movie I was watching, honestly.

What really got me was how the movie just went nowhere. The Sandman was introduced, given a basic motive and then defeated. Venom was basically the same. Mary Jane was boring as usual (I've never like Kirsten Dunst for that role). Gwen Stacy was unnecessary. Harry was quite good mostly, but not done in depth enough, and there was that ridiculous resolution (see below). The whole black suit thing could've been a lot better if it wasn't played for so many emo gags (although I liked the cookie scene too, Duchess). I really do think they tried to cram too much stuff into the movie but ended up just skimming over too many important plot points and diluting the whole story.

The absolute worst part for me, though, was the atrocious deus ex machina moment with Harry's butler (who to make matters worse was played by a dude who really could not act his way out of a paper bag):

"OH BY THE WAY I FORGOT TO MENTION PETER DIDN'T KILL YOUR DAD"
"O RLY?"
"YA RLY"
"WELL I GUESS WE SHOULD BE FRIENDS AGAIN"

The bit about Uncle Ben was similar:

"OH BY THE WAY I DIDN'T MEAN TO KILL YOUR UNCLE"
"K I FORGIVE YOU"

Having said all that, I really liked Bruce Campbell's cameo ("I love romance! I am French!").

[Blue Kitty]

I remember sitting in the theater thinking the same exact thing about Grace.  Hell, when Spider-man smashed his camera I thought Donna was going to pop up and ask him what was wrong.

Overall I thought the film was okay, though I thought that they had tried to much and given so little

[CmonMiracle]

I saw it and I thought it was okay...not really as good as the second.

I don't really like Kirsten Dunst, her teeth bother me, so more screen time in this movie was a thumbs down for me.

I can't really say I liked the casting of Howard either, she's just not pretty enough to be "modeling" and way too pale to be a blonde.

That said, I really enjoyed most of the camp stuff and the emo-pete and the restaurant part.

I did NOT like the last fight scene. It felt too lame...too many one-liners with Harry and Pete. I really liked the first fight though through the alleyway. And for some reason, the one line that cracked me up the most was:

Waitress: How's the pie?
Harry: SO good. *Goofy grin*

[Johnny C]

Gryff the best part of the Sandman bit is that we were all treated to the sight of a cloud of fucking sand drifting into the sunset.

[CmonMiracle]

That part totally redeemed the conversation before it cos Harry had a bit of the lazy eye going on and it was really bothering me.

Also do you have the .gif of Peter's face fat? I saw someone else had it...it's the dancing scene inside the jazz club when he whips off his jacket and blow's Gwen's hair back.

[Cartilage Head]

 How's the pie?

[ampersandwitch]

IT'S GREAT.

Seriously, I was like the only person laughing through the whole thing.
Didn't anyone else find it ridiculous?  Or was I the only one enjoying it?

[Johnny C]

Did I mention the entire theatre was laughing when I saw it?

[ForteBass]

Yeah well, there's no accounting for taste sometimes.
The best part of this movie for me was the credits.
As soon as they started rolling a man at the other side of the theater yelled "Oh my GOD!!! WE'RE FUCKING FREE!!!!!!!!!!!"