im going to say this movie didnt meet all my expectations, it looked real amazing, it had more action, better action and more story, as much as i hate raimi and shit, sp3 had MANY cheesy parts the whole unhealthy symbiote taking over parker portrayed through his image and cockiness, was just too over the top, the hair flick just did it for me, and the jazz scene. Through that, yeah its a good movie, but you can't really go wrong with a 500 mil budget and spider-man
Originally posted by Mobra
Man. Stop being a dick.You overblow "not bad" into "fell flat on its face in almost all the major aspects." it becomes hyperbole.
Had I said "Spiderman 3 was the worst movie in existence" or "Spiderman 3 sucked so bad that Jack Kirby awoke from the dead to smack Stan Lee for allowing them to make this movie." then it would be Hyperbole. What I said isn't hyperbole though, its the truth.
What I'm saying is that Spiderman 3 was entertaining to watch, visually, but it was a brain dead Hollywood fest with little to no actual development and pointless scenes that served no purpose whatsoever where it could have been an amazing movie. They missed the mark with a LOT of major things (almost all the major things), but aside from that at least they did a good job with the CG and it was fun to look at. But overall it was a severely lacking movie.
Originally posted by Mobra
You talked about people going to see Spiderman because it's cool or because it's the thing to do or because their friends tell them to.Some people go because they liked the movie. I went twice because I enjoyed the movie, not because of peer pressure.
I enjoyed it for what it was, a CG action fest made for testosterone pumped 15 year old kids. I enjoyed watching it for those reasons, as a matter of fact I'll prolly see it again at some point. But as a movie goer and especially a Spiderman fan, I was extremely let down, mad, and disappointed with the movie. There were glimmers of greatness in the movie, I'm not saying it was completely devoid of anything good but the bad (and the cheesy) were in much more abundance then the good.
Originally posted by xNIXSONx
it had more action, better action and more story, as much as i hate raimi and shit, but you can't really go wrong with a 500 mil budget and spider-man
What Spiderman? You must mean Peter Parker. I thought there was less action in this flick than the last two, as well as being less enthralling. There was no emotional connection to the fight scenes.
Originally posted by ragesRemorse
What Spiderman? You must mean Peter Parker. I thought there was less action in this flick than the last two, as well as being less enthralling. There was no emotional connection to the fight scenes.
dude stfu ok. im not exactly defending this movie, and not exactly praising it, but as a former-spiderman-movie-hater-gone-"doesnt care anymore"-kmc poster, i hafto admit that there is way more action in this movie than the previous, but like a lot of movies, the scattered love/emotional scenes overpowers and overwealms the action scenes.
Don't tell me the fight scenes had no emotional connection, afterall, sandman killed uncle ben, and spiderman wants to kill him. Venom/Sandman hold Mj hostage, none of that affects Peter/Spider-Man in anyway, yep. 🙄 troll.
Hmm this was better than i thoguht it would be.
lots of action (quantity over quality this time), and lots of new characters introduced.
Too much cgi of spidey flailing in the air instead of using his agility to fight on the ground is my biggest grip about the action.
Plot was surprisingly straightforward, and covered a lot of ground.
The frenchman at the restaurant stole his scene too!
Re: Spiderman 3…Huge potential, failed to live up to it
Originally posted by ((The_Anomaly))
** SPOILERS ** I saw the 12am showing last night at Galaxy theaters and let me say this; in short, it was better then Spiderman 2, but worse then Spiderman 1.There was just too much going on in this movie for it to live up to everything. Let me start.
I think Spiderman 2 is the best of the 3, it has the right balance of action and emotional dilemma for Peter.
I agree there was too much going on, at the beginning the movie things seemed a bit disjointed, moving between characters every few minutes.
Originally posted by Mobra
2. Lol. So you'd like for Pete to treat her like a child? Harry hadn't done anything to her, he'd even giver her flowers at the play. Not only that. Who said Pete was infallible? He didn't know what was going through Harry's head either, he didn't know what he wanted and apparently hadn't talked to him since the bedroom scene. I wouldn't tell my love anything either if I didn't have more parts to the puzzle than that.4. It was obvious that he was being hurt, his costume was ripped and he was out of breath. If you wanted him to bleed everywhere then I guess they didn't satisfy you. Tough shit, walk it off.
7. Right. Because Mary Jane can ever be afraid of anything ever. Even though one of the best friends of her life just swooped in to her apartment and kidnapped her and is obviously watching her every move.
9. Funny how you commented that the rebuttal to #7 was a weak answer when all you've got is "The movie wasn't good" If you have a problem with coincidences then don't watch any movie or read any fictional book ever. They're filled with them.
Clearly Sam Raimi could put out a piece of dung, dress it up as Spidey and you think it is good. Your choice. Go see it again.
I stick by my comments. The movie was weak. The story was weak. The acting was weak.
I'll watch Spidey 1 and 2 and pretend 3 doesn't even exist.
Originally posted by doctorstrongbad
Are we going to have the same discussion again? Part 3 is awesome and made 150 million in one weekend. How can you guys say its not good?
While I think the movie is getting a bit of a harsh rap, you can't say that just cause it made a lot of money, it's a good movie.
Take a look at the top 100 movies (money wise) (*I'm too new to be able to post links*) and compare it to the top 100 movies (imdb) and the only ones that make the cut are the three Lord of the Rings movies and the original Star Wars. Most blockbusters aren't amazing movies... with the exception of those.
Spiderman 3 wasn't a big dissapointment though. The "good gap" between X2 & X-Men 3 was wayyyyy bigger than between Spidey 3 and its prequels. It's mainly hardcore comic book fans who are crying cause it didn't include every detail that was in the comics. And yet if it was a "Venom fest" for 2 hours, people would have probably said it was what ((The Anomaly)) is apparently already saying it was "a braindead Hollywood fest". You can't please everyone. And yes, I know you people are just expressing your opinion.... so am I 😈
People should be happy the trilogy was handled as well as it was. It could have ended up like those horrible video-game adaptation movies, Superman Returns, etc.
Originally posted by Trolt
Hmm this was better than i thoguht it would be.lots of action (quantity over quality this time), and lots of new characters introduced.
Too much cgi of spidey flailing in the air instead of using his agility to fight on the ground is my biggest grip about the action.
Plot was surprisingly straightforward, and covered a lot of ground.
The frenchman at the restaurant stole his scene too!
I actually thought the CG of Spidey webslinging didn't look as good as the previous movies. It looked more fake in 3, which is weird since they had more time and better technology to do it.
I too was really disappointed. Peter's dark side wasn't dark, it was midly aggressive.
If you're going to give a character a dark side, do it right! Make him very violent, so violent he think's he's going to kill someone. So nasty and aggressive he takes things too seriously, he never loosens up. One nasty son-of-a-***** is what he should've been!