Reply
Mon 7 May, 2007 11:32 am
Caught this latest offering on Saturday at The Odeon Leicester Square.
It's THE most expensive film we've seen to date,coming in at around $250 million and it's way too long.They've shoe-horned a totally unnecessary story about Uncle Ben's killer,who eventually turns into The Sandman.By the way,just what were those scientists doing to the pit of sand in the first place?
I thaught Venom's charachter was very well built up.He was really scaring the little kids in the theatre.I also liked how they handled Harry/New Goblin.The whole theatre was in stitches watching The Maitre D' (obviously based on John Cleese) and very much enjoyed Peter Parker's "walk down the street acting cool" and his dance in the Jazz Club.A welcome dose of lightheartedness.
Sam Raimi has not let the franchise down but was given too much money and too many toys to play with.He tries to get too many bangs for his bucks but fails to deliver the epic that this should have been.But,saying that,I wasn't dissapointed after seeing it either.
Saw the review on Ebert and Roeper -- two thumbs down. You've described it pretty much the same and it looks like a repeat of the "two many toys," plus some really muddled up storyline, of "Matrix Revolution."
An enjoyable spectacle over all, but agreed: too long and too muddled. I haven't been able to figure out what the appropriate subtitle would be:
Spiderman 3: A Day at the Beach
or
Spiderman 3: The Secret of the Ooze
or
Spiderman 3: I Get by with a Little Help from My Friends
I saw "28 weeks later" on Saturday and "Spiderman 3" on Sunday.
Saturday was a better day.
I saw Spiderman 3 on saturday, a spontaneous decision to go and see it at 2pm,a time when bloomin kids are there, adding to the joy by talking all the way through 'thats him,...thats sandman, he's the baddie'...'daddy, whats going on' and then the parents join in!!!
It was nothing new, at the end of it I decided I liked it.
It reminded me alot of Superman 3!
Loved the bit where Peter Parker went 'cool' he looks lovely with his hair over his forehead!
Nothing amazing but enetertaining all the same.
And what was that machine that the eventual Sandman found himself in??!!What experiment where the scientists doing?
material girl wrote:Loved the bit where Peter Parker went 'cool' he looks lovely with his hair over his forehead!
REALLY! I had no idea people actually considered that boy attractive...he's got such an unflatteringly pudgy little face and the least endearing expressions...but to each her own
I thought that it was a very poorly written movie. The premise is so powerful that it's difficult to entirely ruin, but "Spiderman 3" came close. The best written part of the script was the last half hour or so, but, in general, the Spiderman story deserves a more competent treatment. The first movie suffers from some of the same problems, but was more difficult to ruin, since it was constrained to follow the basic story from the comic book. The best of the lot, so far, was #2. They need to replace Sam Raimi with someone more capable.
Not just as director, either -- I think the writing by commitee and nepotism had a hand in turning in an average entry in the series:
Writing credits
Sam Raimi (screenplay) &
Ivan Raimi (screenplay) and
Alvin Sargent (screenplay)
Ivan Raimi (screen story)
Spiderman II:
Writing credits
(WGA)
Stan Lee (comic book) and
Steve Ditko (comic book)
Alfred Gough (screen story) &
Miles Millar (screen story) and
Michael Chabon (screen story)
Alvin Sargent (screenplay)
Spiderman:
Writing credits
(WGA)
Stan Lee (Marvel comic book) and
Steve Ditko (Marvel comic book)
David Koepp (screenplay)
Two had a committee on the storyline but one screenwriter, and not the director. It had a single screenplay writer.
You're right that Raimi needed to be replaced for three, especially taking over to write the screenplay with Ivan Raimi -- a weak script and it's the old adage that you can't make a silk purse our of sow's ear.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace