Gender: Unspecified Location: Sweden, near Finland and Norway
First Spider-man was hell of a lot better than the third one. Ruined by having too many 3 villains: Sandman, Harry, Venom ... Also Venom, worst casting ever. Venom should been some big muscle freak instead of that bs.
you got to be kidding? sm2 is the ONLY one thats any good.BOTH one and three are a joke.Once you get over the fact that a spiderman movie has finally been made and you view it objectively instead of just merely being happy that spiderman is on the screen,you realise how horribly written it REALLY is.
seeing how horrible the first one was I didnt expcet anything from the second one but it was MUCH better written with much better special effects.the effects in the first one look cheesy as hell besides the horrible script and lines. the third one is just a tiny bit worse than the first god awful one.
__________________
Spiderman is the worst comicbook movie ever,movie should have been called MAN-SPIDER. Organics are the biggest sin in hollywood history.
Last edited by Mr Parker on Oct 2nd, 2009 at 06:52 PM
1 - Had higher energy and freshness. The actor's had a genuine like and Chemistry with each other. You could sence that Tobey almost enjoyed played Spider-man and Miss Dunst almost liked being there . . . .
2 - Was certainly more Relized of a movie. Bigger action and Special effects that the First should of had. Toby made some comments as Spider-man that wrere almost funny . Overall Bigger movie in general. But some of the energy and chemistry from the first was gone for me. You could tell that the Cast was getting a bit tired. And all the interviews and general info didn't help.
Both had equal good and also sappy / cringe worthy moments . So it's hard to say which was 100% better for me.
Last edited by jayce78 on Nov 19th, 2009 at 12:01 AM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 4th, 2009 12:44 AM
