Spider-Man 3

[norphen]

While I've generally been quite fond of the Spider-Man series and accepted them as intelligent adaptations of the comic books that figured so prominently into my childhood, it often seems that the anticipation of a new Spider-Man is a little better than the film itself once you get it. Certainly this is the case for Spider-Man 3. In terms of

Comments

It's a-me! Powerdude247-a!

[anonymous]

I agree with you 98%. I was hopeing for them to take the Ultimate approach with Venom. That would have been better then the Meteor.

Maybe in SM4 Spidey will tell everyone who he truly is and Iron Man will give him a new suit! I really hope they introduce other marvel characters in the series and kick it up a bit!

B+

[joeloco]

Rob--

I feel that it's my responsibility to remind you that you gave "Batman Begins" a B+ as well. Now, if you're sitting there, eyebrow arched, thinking, "Yeah? And?" then I would probably flip out and ponder, vehemently, how you could think that "Spider-Man 3" was as good as "Batman Begins."

But then I remember that the presence of Katie Holmes alone is good enough to knock any film a good two or three spots lower than it should have been, and I'm no longer so...perplexed.

In all seriousness, though, Spider-Man 3 just didn't do it for me. Writing woes aside, the pacing felt off, and the acting was far less genuine than in other installments. The action sequences seemed so forced (in how they came about) that a lot of the "wow" factor was lost on me. I dunno. Maybe it was my unrealistic expectations, maybe it was Sony's well implemented hype machine letting me down, but I just...didn't enjoy the film. Kinda weird, all things considered.

Re: B+

[norphen]

That B+ for Batman Begins may turn out to be a notorious moment in my career if people still remember it...you may be about to flip out, cause I've never thought that movie was a good as everyone says it is. And it's not just because of Katie Holmes, though obviously that doesn't help. It was hard to discuss the reasons why with much detail in my original review of it since a full explanation would have requiring story spoilers. Now though....everyone's seen it so no big deal

Re: B+

[joeloco]

Random thought about the Batman films -- when you really think about it, there are very few of Batman's villains that can physically take him in a fight - he's just too well trained. This is apparent in the comics and requires Batman to use, you know, strategy. Why? Because the bad guys have guns. And he's not bullet-proof. Why on earth do they keep making Batman bulletproof in these movies, over and over again? It's silly, and it causes villains like Scarecrow to be rendered useless the moment Batman gets his hands on him. Also, there seems to be a very concerted effort to make Batman invulnerable to gravity, too (this little glider cape being the latest gadget...). They're turning him into Superman, which is a whole lot less interesting...

Re: B+

[norphen]

It's especially more pronounced in Scarecrow's case. Professor Crane is a scrawny guy, and one right hook from a guy like Batman would surely knock him out cold. What I wanted to see there was a final confrontation, with Batman, drugged by the fear gas, having to fight his way through horrific visions before finally landing that punch on Scarecrow. But I guess the focus was more on Ra's Al Ghul, so Batman could be like "heh heh heh I'm letting you die. Peace." Now that the Joker is on his way (probably the greatest villain in all comics...as much as I love the Hobgoblin, let's give credit where it's due), I'm hoping the writers will put together some more epic confrontations. And yeah, Batman shouldn't be flying. That's why he's got his plane.

[etherb0x]

I missed you guys.